Regular Meeting of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA YNEZ ...

Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No.1 – August 21, 2018 Regular Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 3

Regular Meeting of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES

SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 will be held at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 21, 2018

at 1070 Faraday Street, Santa Ynez, Ca. - Conference Room Teleconference Location: 2012 Old Country Road, Riverhead, New York, 11901

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. REPORT BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF THE AGENDA

IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 17, 2018

V. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 17, 2018

VI. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 19, 2018

VII. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE AGENDA

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT - Any member of the public may address the Board relating to any non-agenda matter within the District’s jurisdiction. The total time for all public participation shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes and the time allotted for each individual shall not exceed three (3) minutes. The District is not responsible for the content or accuracy of statements made by members of the public. No Action will be taken by the Board on any public comment item.

IX. CONSENT AGENDA - All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be approved or rejected in a single motion without separate discussion. Any item placed on the Consent Agenda can be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda for discussion and possible action upon the request of any Trustee. CA-1. Water Supply and Production Report CA-2. Status of WR 89-18 Above Narrows Account CA-3. Report on State Water Project – Central Coast Water Authority Activities CA-4. Status of State Water Resources Control Board Permits, Environmental Compliance and Hearings

Update CA-5. National Marine Fisheries Service – September 7, 2000 Biological Opinion for Cachuma Project

Continuing Operations CA-6. Cachuma Project and Water Service Contract Update CA-7. Update on Security Measures for Water Utilities

X. MANAGER’S REPORT - STATUS, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: A. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION – (Est. 30 Minutes)

1. Financial Report on Administrative Matters a. Presentation of Monthly Financial Statements – Revenues and Expenses b. Approval of Accounts Payable

2. FY 2017/2018 Annual Audit Preparation and Field Work 3. Annual Review of Investment Policy

XI. MANAGER’S REPORT - STATUS, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: B. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - – (Est. 30 Minutes)

1. 12” Isolation Valve Installation – Hwy 246 and Refugio Road

2. Redevelopment of Wells #17 & #18 SWRCB License for 4.0 CFS

3. Redevelopment of Wells #10 SWRCB License for 6.0 CFS

XII. REPORT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: (Est. 2 ½ Hours) A. State Water Project - Central Coast Water Authority

1. Presentation and Update on Assignment of State Water Contract from Santa Barbara County Water Agency to CCWA

2. State Water Project – Department of Water Resources Contract Amendment 3. State Water Project – Department of Water Resources Contract Extension


B. Cachuma Project – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Continuing Operations (Est. 30 Minutes)

1. Cachuma Project Water Service Contract No. I75r-1802R, Water Deliveries, Exchange Agreement, Entitlement, Water Storage, Accounting, Water Supply Projections

2. 2020 Water Service Contract Process and Negotiations – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 3. 2020 O&M Transferred Project Works Process and Negotiations – U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation

C. National Marine Fisheries Service - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Section 7 Consultation 1. Time Extension - New Proposed Action 2. Termination of the existing Section 7 Consultation Process

D. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

1. Status Update Regarding SGMA Implementation in the Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin and the Eastern Management Area

E. State Water Resources Control Board – Draft Order on Permits 11308 and 11310 of the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Project 1. Closed Session Board Meeting August 7, 2018 2. Draft Order 2016

F. State of California – Division of Drinking Water 1. Status Update Regarding Chromium 6 MCL 2. Gov. Brown Statewide Water Tax – Budget Trailer Bill imposing a tax on all residences

and businesses G. Santa Barbara County Fire Department

1. Notice Prohibiting Separate Meters for Fire Protection on Residential Units

H. City of Solvang 1. Ad Hoc Committee meeting report 2. Water Supply Update

I. Santa Ynez CSD – Wastewater Management and Reuse Facilities Plan

J. Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District WR89-18 Downstream Water Rights Releases K. Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Cooperative Partners – Prop 1 & 68 Grant

Funds 1. September 12, 2018 Projects Meeting

XIII. REPORTS BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF, QUESTIONS OF STAFF, STATUS REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMITTEE REPORTS, OBSERVATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS AND/OR COMMUNICATIONS NOT REQUIRING ACTION

XIV. CORRESPONDENCE: GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS THE ITEMS NOT MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) FOR FILE

XV. REQUESTS FOR ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA: Any member of the Board of Trustees may place an item on the meeting agenda for the next regular meeting. Any member of the public may submit a written request to the General Manager of the District to place an item on a future meeting agenda, provided that the General Manager and the Board of Trustees retain sole discretion to determine which items to include on meeting agendas.

XVI. NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: The next Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees is scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.


XVII. CLOSED SESSION - The Board will hold a closed session to discuss the following items: A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION

[Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code] 1. Name of Case: Adjudicatory proceedings pending before the State Water Resources

Control Board regarding Permits 11308 and 11310 issued on Applications 11331 and 11332 to the United States Bureau of Reclamation and complaints filed by the California Sport fishing Protection Alliance regarding the operating of the Cachuma Project and State Board Orders WR73-37, 89-18 and 94-5; and proposed changes to the place of use of waters obtained through aforementioned permits for the Cachuma Project

2. Name of Case: Adjudicatory proceedings pending before the State Water Resources Control Board regarding Permit 15878 issued on Application 22423 to the City of Solvang regarding petitions for change and extension of time and protests to the petitions

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL LITIGATION Potential initiation of litigation against the agency [Subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code – 1 case]

1. Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board; Membership and Assessments

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL LITIGATION Potential initiation of litigation by the agency [Subdivision (d)(4) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code – 1 case]

XVIII. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION [Sections 54957.1 and 54957.7 of the Government Code]

XIX.ADJOURNMENT

This Agenda was posted at 3622 Sagunto Street, Santa Ynez, California and notice was delivered in accordance with Government Code Section 54954. This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. The Board reserves the right to change the order in which items are heard. Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file with the District and available for public inspection during normal business hours. A person who has a question concerning any of the agenda items may call the District’s General Manager at (805) 688-6015. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are distributed to the Board of Trustees within 72 hours (for Regular meetings) or 24 hours (for Special meetings) before it is to consider the item at its regularly or special scheduled meeting(s) will be made available for public inspection at 3622 Sagunto Street, during normal business hours. Such written materials will also be made available on the District's website, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the regularly scheduled meeting. If you challenge any of the Board’s decisions related to the agenda items above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence to the Board prior to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to review agenda materials or participate in this meeting, please contact the District Secretary at (805) 688-6015. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

SANTA YNEZ RivER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT No.1

TULY 17,2018 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

Agellilda Hil:em IV.

A Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, was held at 2:00p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 in the Conference Room at 1070 Faraday Street, Santa Ynez.

Trustees Present: Kevin Walsh Jeff Clay

Harlan Burchardi BradJoos

Michael Burchardi

Trustees Absent: None

Others Present: Chris Dahlstrom Karen King

Mary Martone

I.

II.

III.

IV.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Walsh called the meeting to order at 2:0Q,p;fu,, he stated t:hii\'1'\(flS a Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Martone reported al,tmembers of the Board'1j'er,e present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: President Walsh led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF THE AGENDA: Mrs. Martone presented the affidavif·,C!f'pb,~~g of the agencl'~!',along with a true copy of the agenda for this meeting. She reportE'ci, that"tite'agenda waii''posted in accordance with the California Government Code commencilig at §\itii8Ii:~4~5pand also pmsuant to Resolution No. 340 of the District. 'I'!'le,~'~tfidavit is filel:ln''as eviden~~F'of the posting of the agenda items contained therein,

CLOSED SESSION:

The Boar~ adjourned to do~ed session at?:Olp.m. to discuss IV. A. & B.

A. < 'f'UBLIC EMf'LOYEE PERF0ll,Jv1ANCE EVALUATION: Title - General Manager [Section 54957 of ' ' ' • the GovernmentCpde]

- --.. ·-. " --~ -.

B. dqiNFERENCE WITH):.ABOR NEGOTIATOR: JEFF DINKIN - STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & ROlfTH; Umepresented Employee - General Manager [Section 54957.6 of the Government Code]

The Board discussbd'IWA. & B. while in closed session with Mr. Jeff Dinldn, Legal Counsel.

45 V. 46

OPEN SESSION: Consideration and Appmval of General Manager Compensation Adjustments

47 48 49 50 51

The Board reconvened to open session at 2:41 p.m. Mr. Dinkin reported that as a result of the Closed Session and following negotiations with the General Manager, Trustee Clay MOVED to approve a 2% increase, resulting in a base salary of $230,655.20 effective June 1, 2018. Trustee M. Burchardi seconded the motion; it was carried by a unanimous 5-0-0 voice vote.

July 17, 2018 Special Meeting Agenda Page 1 of2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ADJOURNMENT:

Being no further business, it was MOVED by Trustee M. Burchardi, seconded by Trustee Joos and carried by a unanimous 5-0-0 voice vote, to adjourn the meeting at 2:43p.m.

ATTEST:

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, -~. !(\

Mary Martone; Secretary to the Board

Kevin W alshi 'President (". \ '- ~- '\

MINUTES PREPARim BY:' '

' \ \I

,_.-. ---::-:--:---::c:---::---::---::-,----,----,------,-,---------, -";"'

Karen King, Board Administrative Assistant "')

July 17,2018 Specia.l Meeting Agenda Page2of2

2 3 4

SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.1

JULY 17, 2018 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

5 6 7 8 9

A Regular Meeling of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, was held at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 in the Conference Room at 1070 Faraday Street, Santa Ynez.

Trustees Present: Kevin Walsh Michael Burchardi

Harlan Burchardi Brad Joos

Jeff Oay 10 11 12 13 14 15

Trustees Absent: None "~-;.

Others Present: Cluis Dahlstrom Karen ICing

Paeter Garcia Eric Tambini Matt Young Allen Anderson

¥~,~~tone 16 17 18 19 20 I. 21 22 23 24 II. 25 26 27 III. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 IV. 35 36 37 V. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 VI. 51 52 53 VII. 54 55

Bill Buelow Brian Schultz France Komoroske

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

,:<MiittWanderLinden . 'GruJtKVjstad

Kevin Crp~1J)ey

President Walsh called the meeting to orderai3i00p.m., hE<~tated ti-Lis was a RegUlar Meeting of the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Martone reported all members of.the Board were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: President Walsh led the Pledge of AI.I~gj<lJlce.

REPORT BY THE SECRETARY TO THE BiiARriREGARDING COMPI:JANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF THE AGENDA: Mrs. Martone presentedthe affidavit of pd~ting;cifthe ~g;e,ij\:lN £long with a true copy of the agenda for this meeting. ?J1e;~~R9Jted that the l'igertda was posted in accordance with the California Government Code'.'corn:rrieri~il}g at Section 51950 and also pursuant to Resolution No. 340 of the District. The afficla'J"it is filed"~~' evidence of the,posting of the agenda items contained therein.

-- -.

CONSIDERATION OF TFIEM!NlTI'IlS'OF THE SPECIALMEETING OF TUNE 26, 2018: The Minutes of the Specia:llJeet:iTig ofJUr1ei:Z6Y2018 were presented for consideration.

CONSIDERATION OP TilE M;~B.fEs OFTHE S~ECIAL MEETING OF TUL Y 3, 2018: T11e~utes of the.Sp~S.U Meel:iri~;of]llly 3, 2018 were presented for consideration.

Agehl:i~J~erns IV. and V:<were disi:ussed together.

PresidertfWalsh asked if/there were any changes or additions to the Special Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2018.i!11dfor July 3, 2018. Trustee H. Burchardi requested minor changes to the Special Meeting Minutes ofJuhe 26,2018 and no changes were requested for the July 3, 2018 minutes.

It was MOVED by trustee H. Burchardi, seconded by Trustee M. Burchardi and carried by a 5-0-0 unanimous voice vote to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2018 as amended and the Special Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2018 as presented.

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions or conections.

PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no Public Comment.

' ', --

July 17, 2018 Regular Meeting Minules Page 1 of 6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

VIII.

CONSENT AGENDA:

The Consent Agenda report was provided in the Board Packet.

It was MOVED by Trustee H. Burchardi, seconded by Trustee J oos and carried by a 5-0-0 unanimous voice vote, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

MANAGER'S REPORT- STATUS, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:

A. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION

1. Financial Report on Administrative Matters a) Presentation of Monthly Financial Statements - Revenues and Expenses

The Board was provided the Statement of Revenues andJ;~<cnses for the month of June in the handout materials. <··· · . ·

-·\'C·''

Mr. Dalllstrom reviewed the Statement of Reven11es;'a:fi\j:·E~penses for the month of June. He reported the revenues exceeded expenses by $S7,668:93'£o~ the month of June and the year-to-date net income is $2,844,751.43. Ii~;explained that June 30, 2018 is the dose of the fiscal year and the June financials re.flei:'t--.the year-end -iih"audited results. Mr. Dalllstrom indicated that the year-end total will be recalculated as invoices from vendors and consultants continue t()·'be submitted for work that was,C:o!Ilpleted prior to June 30th, as well as audit adjustrrients'th<ttinclude depreciation and other audit factors that will be applied to the financials. Mr .. ])<lh1sfrom also informed the Board that tf>e yearthe year-to-date net income includes $8~§,005.38 for the Special Tax Assessment received during the fiscalyear. He reminded'ili~:c13oard that a portion of the year-end net income is earmarked f6¥I-tn.<7:.annual State Water}I;roject and COMB Bond and Safety of Darns payments due ea~·;·y·g~fftwci any remairii.fj.ji;{!Jiilance will be assigned to the Board adopted reserves. :•:.

· Mr. Dallls~O!IlJeported that\.thef}eparbn~hf: 6fWater Resources sent out a revised Statemen{'b'fi:Chigges for State

1;io/ater through Central Coast Water Authority. He

repm·t,<c'W that t:h:~t~~MP&R tran.Spprtation costs for water increased $200,000. Mr. Dalllstfci]ll explaiifed. that the Distl".it(s,economic outlook is slowly starting to stabilize and allow .for tl1e:,i])i~~ict to focus 9'ri capital projects that have been deferred due to District's econornic·-clilnf!:te·•"l~,,wel.L·as slowly build up reserves that were significantly depleted as dictated in theadoptecl2016 Water Financial Plan & Rate Study.

Mr. Dal~j:rom stated'that13artlett, Pringle & Wolf (BPW) will be conducting the annual audit field •work at t)\~ ·District office in late August. He stated staff is currently preparing @.;year-e~d''.financial transactions necessary in preparation of BPW' s field

:o.! .. work. tii~'

b) Approval of~gcounts Payable The'yvarranf'i.ist was provided in the handout material for Board action. The Warrant List C:cfv~fd warrants 21531 through 21598, for the time period of June 27, 2018 through July 17,2018 in the amount of $466,917.33.

It was MOVED by M. Burchardi, seconded by Trustee H. Burchardi and carried by a 5-0-0 unanimous voice vote, to approve the Warrant List as presented.

c) Filing of Fiscal Year 2018/19 Budget and Request for Special Assessment Tax Collection Mr. Dahlstrom reported that each year the Board adopts tl1e fiscal year budget in June and by law the District must submit the budget and letter requesting the collection of tl1e assessment levy to the Santa Barbara County Auditor/ Assessor's office. Mr. Dahlstrom

·stated the Budget for FY 2018/2019 and request to collect the assessment levy of $875,000 was sent to Santa Barbara County on June 28, 2018.

~ /\

july 17, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes . ' Page 2of6

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

IX.

B. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

1. Zone 1 Large Diameter Valve In~tallation The Board packet included a photograph of the Zone llarge diameter valve installation.

Mr. Dahlstrom reported that the installation of the Zone 1 large diameter valve is complete. He stated that the property where the valve was installed was recently sold which provided staff time to coordinate and scl1edule the installation during a time that was optimal for the new property owner and the District's field crew. Mr. Dahlstrom reviewed photographs of the work, showing the design (construction) and installation of the 14-gauge steel wire wrapped pipe. The Board expressed their appreciation to Mr., Eric Tambini, the field crew, and staff for a job well done on the installation. ,,,;;;,'~"~,,

Mr. Dahlstrom explained tl1at included in the 2018/J~''L~);l,dget are several otl1er capital projects whicl1 include additional valve installati~rtS/repJ~~ements (Refugio Road and Scl1ool Street) that will allow the Dish·ict to haVe' better &!ittrol in certain areas of its infrastructure that will be completed by the end''()£ the year.

2. 2017 Consumer Confidence Report- Annual Water Quality Report required by Federal and State Regulations to protect public drinkingwater The Board packet included the 2017 Consllll1er Confidence Report (also lmown as the Annual Water Quality Report) for tl1e DistriCt: 'Mr. Dahlstrom reported iliat tl1e Annual Water Quality Report was ,~ubmitted to the C~o)Ilia Division of Drinking Water and posted on fue District website,'f()r customers in accordai\c~ with State requirements.

REPORT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE B6Aid~dTION ON THE Fotfub~NG SUBJECTS:

A. Sustainable Groundwater Manageme1lt Act(SGMA) 1. Status Update Regarding SGMA lmplernerltation in the Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater

Basin and tht='Easterl~;lyf<tJ1agement Areff Mr. Dalli~!lQ.1TI reporte:~j,on the recent,,,activities related to tl1e Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater'J?asin and"liJ.\e Eastern Manijg~1nent Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency. He stated thaf'h.o·;and @r,,Paeter Garcia, itiistrict Legal Counsel, have been involved in tl1e SGMA. process and with tl1e Eastern Management GSA parties (EMGSA), which include the City ofSolvang, SantaYnez River Water Conservation District (Parent District), and Santa Barbara Cmmty. He stated this is a State-mandated program requiring groundwater basins to conduct studies and manage, groundwater to avoid overdraft and to ensure sustainability. Mr. Dahlstrom explained tl1at tl1e Parent District is currently preparing a budget fuat will be pr,~sented to all qfcttlle parties of fue EMGSA. He indicated that working/ cooperation agr,~~ents for fue,'~f!stern Management Area, which would include guidelines, a process for hil-i:fig'tpnsultants,'iiind cost sharing is also being developed by fue Parent District and the other p'ittties. He stated currently fuere is a working group consisting of staff from each of the participating agencies that have been meeting and discussing the framework for the EM GSA. He reported that the next step in the process will be the formation of a committee made up of eitl1er staff or elected representatives from each participating agency that will attend meetings and discuss actions for implementation of tl1e requirements associated wiili SGMA. Mr. Garcia explained there are different timelines and deadline dates for the completion and adoption of the respective groundwater sustainability plans. He stated the tirnelines differ depending on tl1e status of each basin area. He stated tl1e Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin is designated as a medium priority basin by the Department of Water Resources; however, there are some areas of California that are classified as high priority areas that are substantially and severely over-drafted and have an advanced schedule. Mr. Dahlstrom explained that Santa Barbara County represents 65% of tl1e SY Valley basin and the other 45% is made up of lD No.1, City of Solvang, and the Parent District. Mr. Dalllstrom

July 17,2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of6

I 2 3 4 5

.6 7 8 9

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

X.

explained the intent of the SGMA process was to give local jurisdictions the opportunity to develop plans so that the State of California does not step in.

2. Potential Appointment of Improvement District No.1 Representative to the Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency Mr. Garcia reviewed the current committee representatives selected by each of the participating agencies. He indicated that the City of Solvang has selected two elected officials, the Parent District has two elected officials and Santa Barbara County has one elected official and one staff member assigned to the committee. He explained that the District needs to consider and select its representatives to serve on the committee. President Walsh asked if there was a recommendation. Mr. Dahlstrom recommended tll't~·~:me elected official and one staff member be assigned to the committee. He stated that d).le'tb'th~ complexity of the issues and decisions that the committee will be considering, the f'BJ>ointee must have a considerable amount of time and commitment to attend meetings,.;jficf:p~oyide information back to the respective Board. c•,·;·· ·· · ·· ··

Discussion ensued Trustee Clay recommended th~t'Pr:~ident ~~si{':fepresent: the Board and Mr. Paeter Garcia, District Legal Counsel, senre as the alternate to tlte''Eastem Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency CC)mmittee. ·· ··

It was MOVED by Trustee Clay, seconded .by Trustee H. Burchardiai;d carded by a unanimous 5-0-0 voice vote to appoint Board Pres.td"ent, Mr. Kevin Walsh, and Mr. Paeter Garcia, District Legal Counsel, as representati"l(es to the Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Ag~cyCommittee. ";,:.i'B Mr. Dahlstrom stated that Mr. BJ~j6~B£th~ Parent Dist:fii:f:Will be contacting the Committee members to set up a meeting with ·~ll parties of i:J,l~ GSA. · ·

REPORTS BY THE B.OARD MEMBERS OR ;STAFF, QUESTIONS OF STAFF, STATUS REPORTS,

ANNOUNCEMENTSrJ;'COMMNTilE REPORTs;;• OBSERVATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS AND/OR

COMMUNICATIOJ'Js'NOT REQtflRING ACTION

The Board packet'"fu-CJ.u,ded a·:J.~g~_l, 2018 lettei"from Santa Barbara County Office of the Auditor Controller regarding"· i:)1§.. LAFC®.·;;p:y •. 2018-2019 Final Budget adopted on May 3, 2018. Mr. Dal1lstrome')("JJlained that"IDNo.1 is nota member of LAFCO. The Parent District is the member and ID No.1 is·•a;~:lJ.qcset of' the. Parent District. Mr. Dal1lstrom reported that the District pays its proportionate sh~r~:bf the LAFCQ B\ldget each year through the Parent District, which is $8,989 for fiscal year 2018/19 based.on ID Np.":1's Annual Budget.

" -··. ' ., .:·:

The Bb<'ttdpacket includ~·p. a July 11, 2018 Customer Letter of Appreciation for our Administrative staff mefnb:er, Jill Peterseh~

.. ,," l:''--· , ... ,"

The Board ;~@llo!tjncl;u:i:J:~d the Family Farm Alliance Monthly Briefing for June 2018.

Mr. Dal1lstrom rep"di-ted the Santa Ynez Community Services District (SYCSD) has been working on a wastewater mimagement and re-use facility plan which will be released within the next month. The Plan's purpose is to evaluate alternatives to treating the wastewater from the Santa Ynez Valley area. Mr. Dal1lstrom stated there is grant funding available through Proposition 1 and Proposition 68 for re-use and recycling facilities. He stated that ID No.1 and the City of Solvang staff have been working directly with the SYCSD to help determine feasible alternatives. Mr. Dahlstrom reiterated that ID No.1's position and recommendation has been in support of expanding and consolidating all of tl1e wastewater treatment into tl1e City of Solvang's wastewater treatment facility. Mr. Dal1lsh·om reported that upon completion of the SYCSD's Plan and evaluating all of the alternatives, tl1e final recommendation was to the City of Solvang Wastewater Treatment Facility, whicl1 would include caphrring the town of Los Olivos and Ballard communities.

July 17,2018 Regular Meeting Minutes ·-' ,i '\ ._, 1/ Page4of6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 I I 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 XI. 41 42 43 44 XII. 45 46 47 XIII. 48 49 50

Mr. Dalusl:rom reported that slaff continues to work with City of Solvang representatives to preserve its expired water permit to extract water from the Santa Ynez River. He stated this has been an on-going process whlch relates to the 5 cfs or 3,600 af of water that is appropriated, but not perfected with the State Water Resources Control Board.

Mr. DalUsh·om reported ID No.1 purchased State Water on behalf of the City of Solvang in 2016, whlch was subsequently stored in the San Luis reservoir during the drought. He reported that a portion of the City of Solvang's water was taken last year and is being returned this year.

Mr. Dal1lstrom reported that the City of Solvang's City Manager, Mr. Brad Vidro, requested that tl1e Ad Hoc Committee relating to the consolidation of water services continue discussions. He stated that a meeting would be set up in tl1e near future.

Mr. DalUstrom reported the Central Coast Water Author,i,t}i'•'i:[s, currently working with tl1e Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Santa Barbara<;:ci1lniJ,fe:l~.Fg to the assignment of the State Water Contract and the DWR Extension and Contra2t:•Amendilrent. He stated tllis item will be included on tl1e August Meeting agenda.

Mr. Dahlstrom stated the August agenda willinclude the Cachurna Projei:t;acjjvities report. He indicated that a recent letter was sent to US Bwe::n,r,d Reclamf!tion's Regional Dir.ec.tor and Deputy Regional Director, as well as the Souili-Centtal Areh'Jyianagei' discussing the Contract options for Contract I75r-1802R for water service from tl1e Cachihli;~J"roject.

Mr. Dalustrom reported this year is aJ1 election year V\T{~'H'"ee seats up for election, Divisions 2, Division 3 and At-Large. He stated tl,'i<'it:'i:llecandidate filingp:eriod opens July 16, 2018 and closes on August 10· 2018. He reported can'gidat~S'l!)l;'St file witl1 tlteSarita Barbara County Elections office (in Santa Barbara or Santa Maria):"The el~ci:l6p. t:l'lte is November 6, 2018.

Mr. Dalustrom stated fue.]3oard was provi~ed a,Letter ti:lEfl1E'.::E(iitor that was published in the Santa Maria Times titled '';<;:an(li~~tes are needed.;:·He stated fuat t11e content of the article is misleading and contains some?inaccural:e'iinformation about tl1e Dlsh·ict. Mr. Dahlstrom reported that he would be subffii~g a letteF'\to the Editor df, the Santa Maria Times inviting and encouraging District customers'iUiCI..intere~t~d parties witllm/,Oi~trict boundaries to contact tl1e District office to learn abouttl1e Dishitf. a11d':itsl•pp:ere,J:igi1s, discuss any concerns and/ or get answers to any questions lliatindividuals n~ay have ... ·• · · · · · ·· ··

Mr. Dahlstrom reported tl1at .Mr. Doug Hertl1el, District Customer and Santa Ynez Valley Veterinarian passed away last wee!(.

CoRR.ESPONDENCE: GENEAAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS THE ITEMS NOT MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK

(*) FOR FILE:

The Corre~p,tli}dence listWas received by the Board.

REQUESTS Fod¥·fiJMS;fbBE INCLUDED ON THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA:

There were no requests from tl1e Board.

NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES:

Mr. Dahlsh·om stated tl1e next Regular Meeting of tl1e Board of Trustees will be held on August 21, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.

', \

July 17,2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

XN.

XV.

XVI.

CLOSED SESSION: The Board adjourned to closed session at 4:19p.m. to discuss XV. A., B., C., and D.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION [Subdivision (d)(l) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code]

1. Name of Case: Adjudicatory proceedings pending before the State Water Resources Control Board regarding Permits 11308 and 11310 issued on Applications 11331 and 11332 to the United States Bureau of Reclamation and complaints hled by the California Sport fishing Protection Alliance regarding the operating of the Cachuma Project and State Board Orders WR73-37, 89-18 and 94-5; and proposed changes to the place of use of waters obtained tluough aforementioned permits for tl1e.Cacl1Uma Project

2. Name of Case: Adjudicatory proceedings pending befg~@'\the State Water Resources Control Board regarding Permit 15878 issued on .. ~pplication 22423 to tl1e City of Solvang regarding petitions for change and ex}!O,~'l\)11. of time and protests to the petitions ·.';:';'" .. ;; Ui.'c

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POTENTIAL LITIGATION Potential initiation of litigation against the agepi:f[Subdivision (d)(2}':of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code -1 case] ·

1. Cachuma Operations and Mainten<:li!<le!,Board; Membership and Assessments

c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POTENTIAELl]'IGATION' ., Potential initiation of litigation by the agency;[Sribti{.:risio~ (d)(4) of Section 54956.9 of tl1e Government Code - 1 case]

D. CONFERENCE WITii LEGAL COUNSJ%:_EOJ,'E:NTIALLITIGATI0N'> Potential initiation of litigation ag~t'tE;~.~g~ncy [Subdi~tgj;i'(d)(2) of Section 54956.9 of the GovernmentCode-lcase] ··· ... ,.. .. ..

__ :;:;::>: ::\:_,·::~-~.·.:! . ,,·.· .. · .. :'' ,. .···. ·''' r,'c'o.<

RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION: v~'t ,, (" , ''"::'r [Sections 54957.1 and 54§'57':7.of the GoverrUfl.:i:r;t Code]

;·,;· •,;',-,' .. _.

The Board reco!lvbed to op~·session at 5:43'P,.m. Mr. Kvistad armounced there was no reportable action on Agendafte.'ins. · .. XIV. A:., C., and D. as a restilt of tl1e Closed Session.

""'' ,'• ""

Mr. Kyist~drep()rted that§c1~r Ag~:r;ci<f.It~riiXrv.B., the Board authorized an extension to August 31, 2018 fa the Tolling AgJ.'eement between SYRWCD, ID No.1 and COMB to be prepared and executed by Brownstein, Farber, Hyatt, Sclueck, LLC.

ADTOURNMENT: Being;no further business, it was MOVED by Trustee M. Burcl1ardi, seconded by Trustee H. Burchilrdi and carried by'a 5-0-0 voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 5:44p.m.

\ ( ·._ \ \ I \\ I

Mary Martone, Secretary to\~7)Bpard ', /

ATTEST: Kevin Walsh, ~t~si\:l~nt

' ~::1( J •'' \ :,-:'··' \_~

MINUTES PREPARED BY: · \:

Karen King, Board Administrative Assistant

July 17,2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6of6

2 3 4 5

SANTA YNEZRIVERWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICT A!lJE!IIlltdl<n Qii:em Vi. IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.1

TUL y 19,2018 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

6 7 8 9

A Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation Dish·ict, Improvement District No.1, was held at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 19,2018 in the Conference Room at 1070 Faraday Street, Santa Ynez.

10 I I

Trustees Present: Kevin Walsh Jeff Clay

Harlan Burchardi Brad Joos

Michael Burchardi

12 13 14 15 16

Trustees Absent: None

Others Present: Chris Dalustrom Paeter Garcia . · Mary Martone

17 Gary K vistad - via teleconference

18 19

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

20 21 22 II. 23 24 25 III. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 IV. 34 35 36 v. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 VI. 45 46 47 48 49

President Walsh called the meeting to order at 10:00 ~.ill., hE' stated this w~s ~;$pedal Meeting of the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Martone reported all members of the Board were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: President Walsh led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT BY THE SECRETARY TO THEBOARD REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF THE AGENDA:

CLOSED SESSiON: The Board adjourned to closed session at 10:01 p.m. to discuss V. A. 1.

A .. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POTENTIAL LITIGATION · >Potential initiation-.of litigation against the agency [Subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9 of

·the <:;overnment Cgde- 1 case] 1·.\L:(::achuma or:<;rations and Maintenance Board; Membershir and Assessments

RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION: [Sections 54957.land 54957.7 of the Government Code J

The Board reconvened to open session at 10:56 a.m. President Walsh announced there was no reportable action on Agenda items V. A. as a result of the Closed Session.

July 19, 2018 Spedal Meeting lvlinutes Pap-p 1 nf2

I 2 VII. 3·

ADJOURNMENT:

Being no further business, it was MOVED by Trustee M. Burchardi, seconded by Trustee H. Burchardi and carried by a unanimous voice vote, to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 a.m. 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Mary Martone, Secretary to the Board

ATTEST:

Kevin Walsh, Presid~nt

MINUTES PREPARED BY:··

Karen King, Board Administrative Assistant

July 19, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2

BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA YNEZRIVER WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ID No.1 August 21, 2018

Consent Agenda Report

Agenda Item IX.

CA-l. Water Supply and Production Report. Overall, the water production was less than the 10-year running average for the month of July to meet the lower demand for domestic, rural residential and agriculture water caused by cool and wet weather conditions. This is atypical of water produced for this month in past years. Water conservation by ID No.1 customers remains a major factor in overall total use. This resulted in total water production that was 186 acre feet (AF) less (or the month than the 10-vear running average as shown on the Water Production Report.

With the minimal rainfall over the past season, unusually warm temperatures, and less than normal runoff, water conservation remains entrenched within this District region. Total water production for one-half of the year is 1 ,680 AF as compared to the 6-month average production of 2,185 AF and continues on a reduction trend.

With the State predicting a below average precipitation year, the DWR allocation remains at 35% delivery of SWP water for the year. The District's SWP "Table A" delivery was 30 acre-feet plus accounting for the third month of the return (35 AF in July) of transferred water to the City of Solvang in an effort to avoid spill of its purchased supplemental S WP water that was stored in San Luis Reservoir in 2017.

Based on average rainfall at Lake Cachuma, with no additional appreciable runoff and dry conditions, USBR did not adjust the 40% water delivery in WY2017-18. TDJ 's prorated share is 1,060 AF. The amount ofCachuma Project Exchange Water delivered was 372 AF for the month. The 2017-18 rainfall season beginning September 1 is welJ below average of only 50% of normal to date at the Lake.

The USBR Daily Operations Report for Lake Cachuma for July recorded the lake elevation at 700.12" with the end of month storage of 72,381 AF compared to the end of June level of 701 .67' or 74,878 AF. Precipitation at the lake was 0.00 inches for a year total of 9. 77 inches. The Lake storage is supplemented with SWP water being imported by the South Coast agencies at l, 158.6 AF at the end of July with actual Evaporation of 1,001.1 AF. USBR reinitiated actual evaporation being deducted from Project Carryover and SWP water effective October 1, 2017. At a point when the reservoir storage reaches 100,000 AF and with the continuation of dry weather conditions, no runoff into the lake, typical water demand, and the downstream water rights release occurring, the Cachuma Member Units agreed to take reductions in deliveries by 20%. The Cachuma Member Units requested a 40% allocation for WY2018-19.

The June 2018 Water Production report from COMB was indicates 1 02.0 AF of tunnel yield for the WY Total of 880.1 AF. Year-end WY 2017 totaled 916 AF of Tunnel infiltration in addition to the 882 AF of tunnel yield for WY 2016. Also COMB has delivered to the South Coast CMU's 734 AF year ending 2016 along with an additional640 AF (September year-end 2017 report) of unaccounted for water plus 560.2AF in WY2018 to date. June 2018 unaccounted for water continues with 27.6 AF and only partial deductions from the south coast allocation according to COMB records. There is also a difference in the COMB accounting for evaporation for the month of June of 650.0 AF versus the USBR accounting of 997.6 AF. Reconciliation of these accounts is needed and IDI should receive credit for its proportionate share of water delivered to the south coast.

Fish Conservation Pool filled in 2010 to elevation 753.00' to capture approximately 9,200 AF for fish releases the year of a spill condition and the year following as is now being used . The fish Passage

Dahi/C:Isywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21 , 2018 1

Supplement Account (PSA) of 3,200 AF and the Adaptive Management Account (AMA) water was reset at 500 AF. As of October 1, 2015 the AMA is at 351 AF for a total of3,551 AF fish account water. This Fish Account was restored 3,551 AF with the lake level rebound this past winter.

There were Fish releases as incorporated in the Downstream Water Rights Releases as part of the Settlement Agreement. Below explains the reasons for the flows recorded in Hilton Creek and in the Stilling basin which are direct excerpts from the ESA Section 7 Consultation 2000 Biological Opinion issued to USBR:

NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion Requirements in a Spill Year with Surcharge • 10 cfs at Hwy 154 Bridge - year of a spill exceeding 20,000 AF • 1.5 cfs at Alisal Bridge- year of a spill exceeding 20,000 AF and steelhead are present at Alisal

Reach • 1.5 cfs at Alisal Bridge - year immediately following a spill exceeding 20,000 AF and if

steelhead are present at A lisa! Reach

NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion Requirements in a Minimal or No-Spill Year with Surcharge • 5 cfs at Hwy 154 - less than 20,000 AF spill or No Spill and Reservoir Storage above 120,000 AF • 2.5 cfs at Hwy 154 - in all years with Reservoir Storage below 120,000 AF but greater than

30,000AF • 30 AF per month to "refresh stilling basin and long pool"- less than 30,000 AF in Reservoir

Storage andre-initiate consultation.

Currently, the gravity flows originating at the outlet works through the Hilton Creek Emergency Backup System (HCEBS) travel through the Hilton Creek Watering System piping and are released directly to the diffuser box at the Lower Release Point (LRP), with delivery to Hilton Creek now averaging 4. 65 AFD for July or 144.3 AF plus 238. 7 AF or 7. 7 AFD from the outlet works for a total of 12.35 AFD.

As of July 31, 2018, there has been 23,106.9 AF of "Project" water released for fish since the year after the spill. During a Downstream Water Rights release, fish water is included within the release amounts according to the settlement agreement. Once those releases concluded, "Project" water will continue to be debited although the fish water is being diverted from the Stilling Basin below Bradbury Dam. With the fish Conservation Pool rearing water account, a total of27,791.0 AF has been released for fish during the period following the spill condition in 2011.

The District's river water supply production remains available and consistent with all licensed well fields operational. Currently, without livestream conditions downstream in accordance with WR89-18, credit in the ANA is first priority water being replenished in Cacbuma and expected to be whole with the end of the inflow recession. This allows for the District to produce its full licensed amount should it be needed. The District's Upland Groundwater well production that was once constrained by the Cr6 MCL State Standard in 2014 is now operational.

Direct diversion to the USBR and the County Park was 3.04 acre-feet. For the month, 152.20 AF was produced {rom the Santa Ynez Upland wells. The 6.0 c{s river well field produced 0.0 AF (or the month and 0.00 AF was produced {rom the 4.0 c{s well field.

The CIMIS weather station site in Santa Ynez was partially operational for precipitation for JuJy recording 0.00 inches of rainfall. The daytime high temperature was 106.3 degrees with an average of 93.1 degrees and a minimum temperature recorded of 48.6 degrees with the average low for the month of

DahVC:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 2018 2

55.5 degrees. There were no days of below freezing temperatures during the recording period with no days of agricultural frost protection.

Santa Barbara County recorded rainfall for July in Santa Ynez at 0.00 inches. The average rainfall is 0.01 inches for the month and the year-to-date (September l to August 30) total of 8.22 inches or 52% of the year. The Santa Ynez River watershed Antecedent Index (AI) or soil saturation remains at a maximum dry condition. The total rainfall in the upper watershed of the Santa Ynez River Basin above Cachuma was 11.69 inches or 44% for the year.

NEW INFORMATION BELOW IS PRESENTED IN BOLD TYPE

CA-2. Status ofWR 89-18 Above Narrows Account. The downstream water rights release began on August 6, 2018 at 180 CFS. Releases are expected to continue through October in order to replenish the dewatered alluvial in particular in the upper river alluvial plains. ID No.1 staff performs field monitoring on behalf of and jointly with the Parent D istrict and fisheries data collection during the release period. Staff also conducts stream gauging to determine live-stream events at San Lucas Creek for reporting to the SYR WCD and USBR. The USBR report for May 2018 shows the Above Narrow Account (ANA) and Below Narrows Account (BNA) at 15,943.0 AF and 833.0.0 AF, respectively.

CA-3. Report on State Water Project - Central Coast Water Authority Activities. DWR allocation of SWP water deliveries for 2018 remains at 35%.

The CCWA Board ofDirectors held a meeting on July 26,2018 was cancelled 28,2018.

The acquisition of the 12,214 AF of Suspended SWP Water has moved forward with approval by the Board of Supervisors at a meeting in February. CCWA will continue to pursue the acquisition through DWR on behalf of the parties requesting water including the Cities of Santa Maria and Guadalupe, ID No. 1, and the City of Solvang through ID No. 1' s contract. DWR and the County wj]J require reimbursement of those past costs. ID No.1's share is estimate to be $1.4 million based on its 500 af request. The annual cost of the water is anticipated at $150/af plus treatments costs. The Board of Supervisors met on October 4th and did not approve the reacquisition of the 12,214 for Santa Maria, ID No.1 and Solvang, Guadalupe, and the newest request from Carpinteria Valley Water District. This is a setback with the Supervisors not acting in the best interest of the requesting agencies and possibly jeopardizing ID No.1's 800 AF of the last available SWP water.

The Board of Supervisors acting as the Board ofDirectors of the SBCFCWCD met again on November 1, 2016, heard public comments from all the participating CCW A agencies, and voted to move forward with developing an agreement with CCWA to acquire the remaining 12,214 AF on behalf of the five requesting agencies. An agreement is expected completed prior to the end of the year. A meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2016.

The Board of Supervisors approved the liability and indemnification agreement between the County and CCW A and voted 3 to 2 to move approve the reacquisition of the Suspended SWP water for the parties including ID1 that will receive 500 AF.

DWR has authorized CCW A to prepare an EIR on the suspended water reacquisition. A CEQA lead agency agreement was approved by CCWA; the county has yet to approve the agreement. Additionally, to

Dahl/C:/sywd/board/Conscnt Agenda August 2 I, 201 8 3

ensure the County will move forward with the acquisition process once those participating agencies (including ID No.1) commit to funding the CEQA review, CCWA is seeking an implementation agreement with the County. The agreement terms are being negotiated between CCW A and SB County.

Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the SBFC& WCD met on May 2, 2017 to discuss and concur with the lead agency agreement between DWR and CCW A authorizing CCW A to proceed with EIR for the suspended water reacquisition. Supervisor Williams conditioned the agreement to use this water as a mechanism to control growth by not allowing transfers or sale of this water by those parties acquiring this suspended water including IDl, the north county agencies, and the Carpinteria Valley Water District which entered this arrangement very late in the process. There was opposition to CCW A preparing the EIR and comments made to re-open the Water Supply Retention Agreement. Misinformation was presented about the reacquisition process and the SWP agreements. Following this diversion from the agenda item, the Board voted 3-2 approving CCWA as the lead agency.

The contract assignment underway between CCW A and SB County may have an effect on the Suspended Water Reacquisition timing and process.

On August 29,2017, CCWA provided costs and fmancing of the California WaterFix project, (the Twin Tunnels). The information is presented to give an idea of the estimated costs of the Cal WaterFix project for each agency as well as the fmancing structures being proposed to fmance the project.

As of November 2017, all irrigation contractors in the Cal WaterFix have withdrawn from or substantially reduced participation. This will likely create a shift in the cost allocation and increase the acre foot costs of the project as defined and require a reevaluation of the contracting language.

CCW A and the contracting agencies continue to work on our pursuit of the assignment of the State Water Contract from Santa Barbara County to CCW A. CCW A Board is scheduled to vote on the amendment to the JPA agreement and the amendments to the Water Supply Agreements at its meeting on October 26, 2017. ID No.1 needs approval prior to the October 26111 CCWA Board meeting. Additionally, CCWA is meeting with DWR on September 19th and hope to get more clarification from DWR on its positions regarding the assignment.

With the CCW A and its contracting agencies approval of the assignment and a Bond rating analysis, this paves the way for DWR to take action consenting to the assignment. Once this occurs prior to the end of the calendar year, it is anticipated that SB County will take action in January 2018.

The Bond Rating for CCWA was accepted by DWR in March 2018 and CCWA expects DWR's approval of the assignment.

CA-4. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Permits, Environmental Compliance and Hearings Update

The first phase of the SWRCB continuing jurisdiction hearing on the Cachuma Project Applications 11331 and l 1332 took place in November 2000 and were specific to the "Place of Use" revisions. The SWRCB continued the hearing for the Phase 2 portion which was held in October and November of2003 and based on the SWRCB's Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") released in August 2003 for the continuing

Dahl/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 2 1, 2018 4

operation of the Cachwna Project. Joint legal representation at this hearing involved USBR, SYRWCD, SYRWCD, ID No.1 and CCRB and the focus was proposed changes in the Cachuma Project operations based on the protection of the public trust resources - the Southern Steelhead trout, modifications to the water rights permits, and the Settlement Agreement.

Since then, the SWRCB revised the DEIR in 2007 and included two additional alternatives that could affect the hearings and decisions before the SWRCB in 2003. ID No.1 provided extensive comment during the review period as did others involved in the joint representation. In order to update the RDEIR, the SWRCB engaged Impact Sciences Inc in November 2009 to review the hearing testimony, analyze two DEIR's and provide the necessary updates, and complete to a fmal EIR with response to comments.

Because the SWRCB did not have adequate funding for Impact Sciences to conduct the required work, in May 2010 the SWRCB division of water rights requested that CCRB and ID No.1 provide financial assistance which was approved by both agencies in the amount of $85,000 and forwarded to the State General Services in June 2010.

Impact Sciences has delivered the Administrative Final EIR to the SWRCB staff on August 27, 2010 with an expected water rights decision issuance in late fall early or winter 2010, or should a hearing be needed, spring 2011 .

Based on a meeting on February 7th with the SWRCB staff, additional delays will occur in the EIR process which will affect the hearing date. Circwnstances, including staff availability and funding in the water rights division has now pushed the possible date for a decision without water rights hearing for a least 6 months. Should a hearing be required, it may take up to 2 years.

Recent discussions indicate that the State Board staff may revise the DEIR alternatives and environmentally preferred alternative. It is the position of ID No. 1 and CCRB that alternative 3C which analyzed current operations with the existing BiOp and Water Rights Order 89-18 with modifications, and recognizes the Settlement Agreement is the environmentally preferred alternative. Other alternatives will have impacts on water supplies and the continuing operations of the Cachuma Project. No time frame has been indicated by the State Board Staff as to the completion of the Final EIR.

On April 1, 2011 , ID No.1 received the re-circulated and modified "2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report" from the SWB for comment which were due on May 16th 2011. The 2DEIR shows the new "no action" alternative as 3C and the "environmentally superior'' alternative as 4B the SWP exchange for BNA water to Lompoc. Other SWB updates are incorporated in the 2DEIR. ID No.1 management, special legal counsel BB&K, consultants Stetson Engineers and Hanson Environmental will review the 2DEIR for changes and provide water resources, hydrology, biologic, and legal comment letter by the deadline. This will be coordinated with the Parent District and CCRB.

The Parent District and ID No. I legal counsel and management are in the process of completing a joint comment letter to the SWRCB, which the Parent District took the lead in preparing. The letter content is being coordinated with the CCRB for consistency. Comment period was extended from May 16th to May 31st.

The SWRCB has assigned David Rose as the legal counsel to handle the responsibilities for the 2DEIR in place of Dana Differding who is on maternity leave for up to one year. It appears that the State Board Staff will make an effort to finalize the EIR, including the responses to comments by year's end. However, this will require the ID No.1 and CCRB (excluding Carpinteria Valley Water District because it withdrew from CCRB) to provide additional funding for the completion of the docwnent.

Dahl/C:/sywdfboard/Consent Agenda August 21 , 201 8 5

With the recent additional funding approved by both ID No.1 and CCRB 3 in the amount of $45,000 to fund the SWRCB for completion of the FEIR, to date the Member Units have provided a grand total of over $675,000 for this SWRCB environmental process. Carpinteria Valley Water District participated as a Cachuma Project Member Unit in sharing the $45,000.

Impact Sciences, the SWRCB consultant for the preparation of the FEIR, completed work on the response to comments and finalizing the EIR. SWB staff has indicated that a Final EIR may be completed by midNovember.

On December 8, 2011, the SWRCB as the lead agency under CEQA announced the completion and availability of the FEIR for consideration of modifications to the Cachuma Project Water Right Application 11331 and 11332. The FEIR will be included in the SWRCB hearing administrative record unless Parties to the proceedings object by January 9, 2012. Should there be an objection and it is likely the SWB will hold a hearing.

The SWRCB received comment and objection letters from several parties including the Environmental Defense Center on behalf of CalTrout, Department ofFish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, among others.

The SWRCB has supportive documentation by its deadline of February 28th. The hearing date for the FEIR to be incorporated into the administrative record is set for March 29 and 30, 2012. A significant collaborative effort is underway between USBR, ID No.1, Parent District, and CCRB to prepare for the hearings.

The SWRCB hearing involved the joint advocacy participants and witnesses of 1D No .I, Parent District, and CCRB along with USBR to support and defend the SWRCB's FEIR and the elements contained within the document to be incorporated into the record for a later determination of the Water Rights Order. The opposing parties were the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and their witnesses on behalf of CalTrout, who representatives were noticeably absent from the hearings, as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department ofFish and Game. The Board Hearing Officer issued the ruling on April 5 to incorporate the FEIR into the record with minor corrections to be made prior to the Board ce1tification of the document.

The SWRCB Division of Water Rights may have a water rights order issued by October 2012.

In a recent update from the SWRCB Division of Water Rights, it is unlikely that a hearing will take place in 2012 on a Water Rights Order and FEIR certification for the continuing operation of the Cachuma Project under permits 11308 and 11310. No time has been set by the SWB for 2013.

On Thursday, February 7th, the SWRCB staff rescinded the place-of-use issuance in the 2000 Phase I hearing for the GWD. Although this is not expected to affect the issuance of a draft water rights order for continuing operation of the Cachuma Project. Charlie Hoppin, SWRCB Chairman will not be continuing his position which is likely to significantly affect the timing of the draft water rights order.

SWRCB has indicated that a draft order is scheduled for I /14/2014 which is one year nine months from the hearing in 2012.

Recent indications that the SWRCB will schedule a hearing on the Draft Water Right Order for permits 11308 and 11310 in October 2013 as reported by Cal-Strategies. However, information from other sources now report that the State Board now appears to have delayed the timing of a hearing to after the first of the year.

Dahl/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 201 8 6

Cal-Strategies recently reported that an internal closed session of the SWRCB may occur on January 7, 2014. At this point, no progress has been made in accelerating the water rights order issuance.

Information indicates that the SWB will meet in closed session now in mid to late February on the internal draft water rights order. The State Board is discussing water transfers and drought preparedness in response to the lowest allocations on record to agricultural users and communities.

The SWB has cancelled all water rights activities and hearings due to the drought proclamation by the Governor. The latest information from SWRCB staff is that the hearing may occur in October.

SWB staff has indicated that the Board may meet in closed session in late July or early August. Recent communications with SWB staff indicate that the drought and state-wide water supply issues will take priority and the focus of the SWB will be on those matters. No time has been provided for a hearing.

The State Board may meet in closed session in December to review a Draft Water Rights Order for permits 11308 and 11310 as a result of the hearings that took place in October 2003 and March 2012 on the EIR.

The SWRCB calendar does not show any session in December for Draft Water Rights Order on the Cachuma Project. The last SWB hearing activity was March 2012. SWRCB calendar does not show any session in January 2015.

After hearing a report and confirmation from CCRB's consultant Cal Strategies that the SWRCB would have its closed session hearing on February 17, 2015 with a release of a draft Water Rights Order the following day, this date has once again been pushed. ID1 will continue to check the SWRCB hearing calendar.

No SWRCB bearing date has been set due to the recent Governors orders for continuing State-wide drought conditions and increased regulatory actions taking priority.

The SWRCB held a closed session on the Draft Water Orders on August 22, 2016. Although there was nothing to report out of the closed, management contacted SWRCB staff to inquire about timing of the Order. On September 7, 2016 the Draft Order amending permits 11308 and 11310 was issued to the Bureau of Reclamation and copied to the parties in the past hearings including ID No.1. The Draft Order is under review by ID No.I management, its consultants (Stetson Engineers and Hanson Environmental), and special legal counsel with comments due back to the SWRCB by noon on October 25, 2016.

The SYRWCD and ID No.1 jointly requested a time extension to provide comments from the SWRCB that is consistent with USBR and others. Because of the complexity of the Draft Order, 45-days were not enough time and therefore the request extends to after the first of the year. The SWRCB granted a time extension to December 9, 2016 as the deadline for submittal of comments.

ID No.1 submitted its comment letter to the SWRCB by the deadline. The comment objected to the SWRCB adoption of 5C or more water for public trust resources steelhead rather than the adoption of the environmentally superior alternative of 3C, a balanced water option between steelhead and water supply. lD No.1 coordinated with the SYRWCD to develop a common position but separate letter. Other parties providing comments on the SWRCB Draft Order included USBR, CCRB, NOAA-NMFS, CDFW, EDC/Caltrout, & Cal Farm Bureau.

The special interest group's submitted comment suggesting the SWRCB extend beyond alternative 5C and the NMFS recommended postponing the adoption of the Order to include the 2016 BO. Sample letters are in the Board packet and the entire set of letters can be made available upon request.

Dahl/C:/sywd!board/Conscnt Agenda August 2 1, 201 8 7

A notice was provided in early March 2018 related to the change in the. noticing recipient list.

SWRCB held a closed session bearing on August 7 2018. No information to date has been forwarded by the SWB staff.

CA-5. National Marine Fisheries Service - 2000 Biological Opinion issued to USBR for the Continuing Operations of the Cachuma Project and Section 7 Re-Consultation

The 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by NMFS requires USBR to comply with the terms and conditions (T&C's) and reasonable and prudent measures (RPM's) to avoid a take condition of the listed Steelhead/rainbow trout which allows for the continuing operations of the Cachuma Project for water supply purposes. The Cachuma Project Member Units are carrying out those requirements out on behalf of the USBR.

Under the 2001 MOU, CCRB representing the four south coast Member Units, and ID No.1 have jointly funded and conducted the studies, projects and monitoring requirements as defined in the T&C's and RPM's.

Two passage barrier removal projects have now received full and partial grant funding; Quiota Creek crossings #2 and #7 respectively. Although #2 was not the responsibility of the Member Units, (it is identified in the EIR as a Santa Barbara County Project), both projects may be needed to comply with the BiOp and avoid additional measures that may include additional water releases from Member Unit water supply for fish downstream of Bradbury Dam. The combined cost of these two bridge projects are estimated at $1.8 million.

The Quiota Creek Crossings #2 was completed in 2011 within the contract time. A complete accounting will be provided. Crossing #7 funding is pending approval by the granting agencies. COMB included this crossing in the 2012-2013 Budget and the majority of the Board approved entering into a sole source contract with Lapidus Construction to build crossing #7.

Construction on crossing #7 is complete and a report from COMB regarding the budget will be forthcoming. Grant funding for Crossing #0 is being processed.

During the week of February 25th - 28th, USBR Staff Nick Zaninovich and Doug Deflitch were conducting Routine Operation & Maintenance Inspection of the Cachuma Project facilities. This is a routine inspection according to the SOP protocols. On Thursday February 28th, they visited the USBR owned and operated Hilton Creek watering system siphon/pump barge in order to perform maintenance on the pumps. After "testing the apparatus" on February 28, in the early hours of March 1st, an "incident" occurred and the Hilton Creek watering system lost the ability to siphon water from the lake, flows stopped at both the upper and lower release valves, and there was no water in Hilton Creek. The COMB Biology Staff (CBS) was notified by the USBR Dam Tender at approximately lOam and immediately went to Hilton Creek to rescue fish. NMFS was also notified by USBR of the situation and the fish mortality. At I 2:30pm on March 1st, the pwnps were activated and the water started flowing again.

CBS is documenting the situation with an incident report which will be submitted to the USBR. The USBR is currently working on an incident report. The system is currently using the pwnps for pressurized releases at a higher rate of 8 cfs (16AFD) rather than 6 cfs (12 AFD) as the required target flows . USBR is attempting to install a temporary delivery system so that the Hilton Creek watering system can be assessed. The apparent USBR operator error or system infrastructure failure will be confirmed in a report.

Dahl/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 2018 8

A report was filed by USBR on March 1 3, 2013 regarding the Hilton Creek water system failure.

A regional power outage on June 24' 2013 created another HCWS failure to deliver flows into the creek habitat. Because the HCWS was operating on power only and not in siphon mode, the system was down for several hours from 11:30 pm to 4:45 am according to USER. Additional fish losses occurred and NMFS was notified. USBR has been working internally to develop a reliable and redundant HCWS. No definitive plans have been presented. Costs are reason that a backup system (Rain for Rent) was not put into place.

Currently, the system is functioning on a static level delivery flow of 7. 7 cfs with no plans discussed with the MU's on the remedies to vary the flow rates or the system.

Hilton Creek water system continues to release 9.2 AFD or 4.6 cfs which is greater than the requirements in the 2000 EO. This water is "Project" contract water used as water supplies for the Cachuma Member Units. USBR has not yet remedied this problem because of funding issues.

Reclamation is investigating a redundant HCWS and repairs to the existing system with a time frame of a year or more.

On June 9, Michael Jackson ofUSBR reported to ID No.1 management that on the previous Thursday and Friday, USBR airlifted (using a helicopter) a replacement Hilton Creek pump onto the barge and now have both pumps repaired and operational. USBR staff will continue to monitor its system.

USBR installed a by-pass water line to the 1 0-inch outlet valve at the Control house for the purpose of supplying colder water to Hilton Creek. This installation may create constraints in the downstream water rights releases. USBR also compelled CCW A to install a by-pass and a high line over the radial gate sill to deliver SWP water into the lake rather than through the control house and intake works. The consequences of both actions have not yet been fully evaluated.

USBR has prepared a Draft EO on the focused consultation for the Drought Operations and Hilton Creek Watering System including the 30,000 AF Storage trigger in the reservoir thus reducing fish flows. The contents of the fmal Draft BO have not been made available, however, there are Parent District and ID No. 1 concerns over any permanent connection at the outlet works to serve Hilton Creek affecting downstream and contract water delivery capabilities.

Negotiations are on-going with USBR regarding the 30,000 AF Storage triggering point for fish flows. The focused Draft BO for Drought operations and the reduced fish flows was withdrawn by USBR. No.1 and CCRB are meeting with USER to present information to assist USER in the consultation with NMFS related to lowering the fish flows to 1.0 AFD of 30 AF per month according to the 2000 BO. This is in comparison to the nearly 400 AF per month currently being released for fish into Hilton Creek.

ID No.1 jointly requested with CCRB that USBR modify and reduce fish releases into Hilton Creek to 30 Acre-feet per month in accordance with the 2000 BiOp. A joint letter was sent on July 15, 2014 and USBR subsequently requested additional information on the Cachuma Storage and hydrology. This joint information was forwarded on December 12, 2014. A request was made on January 5 as to the status of thi s action by USER.

In accordance with the 2000 Biological Opinion, since the available water in storage is below the 30,000 AF trigger, USBR will consultant with NMFS to determine the outcome of the reduced fish flows to 1.0 AFD or 30 AF per month. No action has been taken to date and NMFS requested additional studies and analysis.

Dah 1/C:/sywdlboard/Conscnt Agenda August 21, 20 I 8 9

USBR submitted the additional information prepared jointly by USBR, CCRB, ID No.1, and CCRB as requested by NMFS for the Critical Drought Operations on June 1 Olh and July 1 s\ 2015.

There is pending litigation, USBR v. Caltrout related to Hilton Creek and the Emergency Hilton Creek Pumping System. ID No.1 is an Intervener with the SYRWCD and CCRB with USBR in this case. The plaintiffs claim is "take" of the Endangered Steelhead/rainbow trout and temporary and permanent fixes to tbeHCEPS.

Settlement documents have been submitted by the USBR, the Intervening Parties and the Environmental Defense Center for CalTrout on September 23, 2015.

USBR successfully tested the Hilton Creek Emergency pumping System in late October to meet the conditions ofthe Settlement.

The parties to the USBR v. Caltrout settlement Agreement accepted the USBR the Hilton Creek Emergency Backup System as complete. As part Settlement conditions- Stipulation #2, the USBR called the parties to meet on January 27, 2016 to review and take comments on the "Hilton Creek Enhanced Gravity Flow System" (HCEGFS) and proposed connection to the penstock. IDI representatives Walsh and Dahlstrom provided testimony to USBR as well as the SYRWCD General Manager. Cal Trout and CCRB also provided input. Dale Francisco, a member of the public attended the meeting that was meant only for those parties to the litigation and Settlement Agreement. IDI submitted its issues with this situation to USBR. This was neither a Brown Act meeting nor a public meeting.

USBR has not yet responded to comments regarding the HCEGFS.

With the Cachuma Project water available to the Member Units being less than 7,000 AF, on April 6, 2016 IDI requested that USBR convene an AMC meeting to consider changes in passage, maintenance, rearing and critical dry year water for fish downstream of Bradbury Dam. IDl requested that USBR lead this meeting to propose to NMFS that it allow the reduction of flows to 1 Acre Foot per day in accordance with the 2000 BO. It was suggested that this meeting is urgent given the lake levels and available water supply for human consumption.

Two AMC meetings meeting were conducted on April29, 2016 and again on May 3, 2016 to discuss the reduction of fish flows, the emergency Hilton Creek pumping system, and fi sh rescue. NMFS and USBR are negotiating possible solutions. However, fish relocation will require a NMFS 135-day process at which time water will be unavailable.

Several AMC conference calls have occurred in May and June to determine the best means to sustain the existing population of trout in Hilton Creek. No final decision has been made to relocate fish except to consider trucking water to the creek as a temporary fix. An action will be needed prior and following to the downstream water rights releases.

The latest decision by NMFS and USBR following the July AMC meeting was to have water trucks available to fill tanks for making temporary releases into the lower release point of Hilton Creek as the downstream water rights releases commence and after the releases are terminated. Once those releases start from the outlet works, pressure to the Hilton Creek piping will cease and therefore no water would be delivered. Monitoring of the 57 trout in the Creek will continue.

Hilton Creek is being watered at the lower release point from trucked water into a set of tanks. Water comes from a source at outlet works. NMFS has not approved the trapping and relocation of those remaining Rainbow trout to a facility capable of ensuring survival.

Dabl/C:/sywcVboard/Consent Agenda August 21 , 20 18 10

Water to the lower release point of Hilton creek is provided from a pump system in the Stilling Basin. The water is essentially being recirculated with no refreshing releases anticipated from the outlet works. USBR is the lead on this project.

With the elevation of the lake now at 712 ', USBR will be testing the Hilton Creek pump barge in March in anticipation of NMFS mandating fish flow resume to Hilton Creek beginning in April. Flows will be subject to the criteria in the 2000 BO.

USBR tested the Hilton Creek pump barge on April 7 and resulted in a failure mode which requires the continued use of the HCEBS at the outlet works to continue to gravity force water to the lower release point in Hilton Creek. No time or a cost estimate is forecast for repairs by USBR. As a result, CCWA was forced to re-install the bypass pipeline up the spillway and through Gate #4 rather than connect to the penstock at the outlet works control house as has been done over the past 25 years. CCW A deliveries of SWP water to the south coast will be through this temporary bypass.

CCW A was directed by USBR to cease delivery operations through the Bradbury Dam penstock by March 23, 2017. On April 14, 2017, the CCWA bypass pipeline was re-installed based on modifications and approval by USBR which allows CCW A deliveries of SWP water to resume. CCW A south coast agencies paid for the re-installation.

As of March 2018, CCWA deliveries to the lake were shut down from March 21 to March 27. Typical daily deliveries were 40 AF.

For the month of April, 2018, releases for fish at 4.48 AFD are made through the HCEBS and through the outlet works.

Fish releases continue through the HCEBS and outlet works. As of August 6, 2018 the downstream water rights account for fish release throughout the duration of the ANAIBNA release period.

On February 9, 2011 , USBR submitted completed the documentation supporting compliance (Compliance Report) to NMFS with the requirements pursuant to the September 11, 2000 Biological Opinion. The binder contains responses and actions that address the 15 RPM's and associated Terms and Conditions. USBR staff recently requested the status of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 annual monitoring report, including trend analysis for 2005-2008 (Tenn & Condition 11-1 ) that was not contained in the Compliance Report. CCRB, ID No.1 and Parent District will review the update of the 2008 report within the next week for submittal to USBR. The 2009 and presumably 2010 reports are work in-progress being prepared by the joint biology staff.

The 2008 Annual Monitoring Report and Trend Analysis for 2005-2008 for the Biological Opinion for the Operation and Maintenance of the Cachurna Project on the Santa Y nez River was reviewed by ID No.1 , Parent District and CCRB then finali zed for submittal to USBR on June 22, 2011. On June 23, USBR submitted the document to the NMFS and will be incorporated into the USBR Compliance Binder.

The 2009 Annual Monitoring Report and Trend Analysis were made available in draft form for review by lD No.I, Parent District and CCRB on July 7. ID No.1 provided comments which were incorporated into the fmal document. The Report was reviewed by a COMB Fisheries Committee which provided comment on the Report. Although COMB and this committee is not part of the fisheries review process and/or on the Adaptive Management Committee (AMC) as defmed in and as part of the 1994 or 2001 Fisheries MOU's with Reclamation and others, these comments were provided to COMB biology staff. Comments on the Report have not yet been circulated by the biology staff to the AMC or other agencies part of the Fisheries process to consider.

Dahl/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 2018 11

On October 27, the Biology Staff forwarded the revised Executive Summary of the 2009 Annual Monitoring Report and Trend Analysis for fmal review by CCRB, SYRWCD and ID No. I along with their respective consultants. Comments specific to the text for funding sources and preparation of the document were provided by ID No.1. As of this date, the 2009 Report has not yet been sent to Reclamation.

NMFS issued a letter to USER indicating delinquent monitoring reports; 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well as the RPM 6 related to the monitoring of 89-18 water rights releases. COMB was named in this letter for not having submitted the 2009 report by the August 24, 2011 due date. A response was requested of USBR.

On March 9, 2012, USBR submitted to the NMFS the 2009 Annual Monitoring Report and Trend Analysis for the Biological Opinion for the Cachuma Project. This document complies with RPM 11, T&C 11.1 of NMFS's Biological Opinion. The 2010 report is the next report for submittal. This document was prepared by USBR, the staff and consultants of the Cachuma Project member units.

USER submitted to the NMFS the report for monitoring fish movement during water rights releases during a three year period. This document complies with RPM 6, T&C 1) A&B of NMFS's Biological Opinion.

Annual Monitoring Report 2010 was submitted to USER in February 2013.

A draft 2011 Annual Monitoring report was recently made available on June 7 by the Cachuma Project Biology Staff with a due date of June 11 for review and comment. Given the demand for review and preparation of the Draft BA by June 28, this time is being reconsidered.

USBR submitted a June 3, 2013 letter to NMFS regarding the 2000 BO RPM 6 (downstream water rights releases) Study Plan. According to the SCCAO Area Manager, this plan for monitoring during water rights releases was produced by USBR and the Cachuma Project Biology Staff (COMB). In a conference call on July 1, 2013 between the downstream parties only and USER (Michael Jackson, SCCAO Manager et. al.) a significant issue has been created with this action and the associated "Study Plan" because of the disregard of Reclamation to engage, consult or allow review of this action by the SYR WCD or any downstream interest that involves this water right release. According to Michael Jackson's explanation, this plan was worked on by Ned Gruenhagen of USER and the "Cachuma Project Biologist", Tim Robinson of COMB. The significant issue herein lies with the lack of communication and involvement of the SYRWCD and downstream water rights interests, and with the additional conditions in this June 3 Study Plan (e.g. warm- water predator fish data and water quality analysis) that are not required in the 2000BO.

The language in this study plan admits that these items are not a requirement (second to last paragraph on page 2). As a Cachuma Member Unit and as a downstream water right holder, COMB's action (understanding from USER of the Cachuma Project Biology Staffs involvement) to engage in any activity beyond that of the 2000 BO is not allowable. In this circumstance, the Study Plan has created additional level of effort and provides that the CPBS of COMB will be conducting and immediately carrying out of these activities which are beyond the 2000 BO requirements; and, COMB becoming directly involved in water rights matters, thus violating the COMB JP A related to 1.3 .h.i - "a matter involving water rights of any party".

The downstream parties were not apprised of the preparation of the Study Plan nor included in its development and unaware of this Jetter. Legal Counsel from the SYRWCD and ID No. 1 are involved.

Dahl/C:/sywdfboardfConsent Agenda August 2 1, 2018 12

Conflicting information and inconsistencies related to the content of the draft 2011 Annual Monitoring report have caused USBR to hold the submittal.

The 2011 Monitoring report was modified by USBR and released in March.

The EDC has filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue USBR citing violation of the 2000 BO and the ESA because of the Hilton creek pump problems and referencing COMB's April 14, 2014 letter. According to Michael Jackson, the USBR Solicitor will be responding to both EDC and COMB.

USBR has responded to COMB and a rebuttal from COMB to USBR. Additionally, COMB's CPBS has completed a draft ofRPM-6 related to water rights without the involvement of the SYRWCD or ID No.1 as a downstream user and as participants on the AMC. This has caused significant issues and COMB has engaged in water rights activities outside the scope of its authority.

USBR awarded the contract for Hilton Creek Emergency Backup System (HCEBS) to Sansone Company in the amount of $659,993 and to be constructed by December 3, 2014. This is a reimbursable cost to USBR by the Cachuma Member Units.

EDC has filed a lawsuit against USBR related to the Hilton Creek Watering System interruptions and violation of the ESA and the 2000 BO terms and conditions.

The Annual Fish Monitoring Report for 2012 has not yet prepared nor released. COMB staff compiles the information for finalization by USBR.

An internal draft of the 2012 Annual Fish Monitoring Report was circulated to the consultant biologists of ID No.1 and CCRB as well as to the SYRWCD for comment. CCRB and ID No.1 will receive the draft prior to submittal to USBR. COMB biology staff prepared this document on behalf of ID No.1 and CCRB for Reclamation's compliance requirements in the 2000 BO. The document has not been sent to ID No.1 as of this date.

With the Water Rights releases beginning on August 3, 2015, COMB staff set up temperature and fish traps to capture predator fish and monitor rainbow trout. ID No.1 and SYRWCD staff is monitoring COMB activities as these procedures were not reviewed by the JDCA or 2001 MOU parties.

IDl staff has prepared comments draft of the 2012 Annual Fish Monitoring Report ("AMR") which are due by September 15, 2015. COMB sent a PDF of the 2012 AMR to USBR on October 2, 2015. District management forwarded to USBR on October 5, 2015 a redline Word version to assure comments by District management, staff, and its consultants were incorporated in the AMR.

COMB staff has prepared a 2013 draft AMR for USBR which was reviewed by Chuck Hanson, ID1 's fisheries expert. IDl is a member of the AMC and is supposed to approve or consent to the AMR' s being forwarded to Reclamation for submittal to NMFS. COMB has not abided by that process. It is unknown if COMB has forwarded the document.

As of March 2018, IDl has not received notification from COMB that the AMR's from years 2014 to present have been prepared or submitted to USBR (this is the responsibility of IDl and CCRB under the 2001 MOU to conduct and prepare these studies).

USBR, ID No.1 and CCRB legal counsel and management have scheduled a meeting at the SCCAO in Fresno to open begin applicant status discussion for the Section 7 Re-Consultation process. This meeting

Dahi/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21 , 201 8 13

on June 2, 2011 is the first of a regular series of anticipated monthly meetings with USBR over the next year.

On June 23, 2011, USBR submitted to NMFS a revised Draft Outline for the Biological Assessment ("BA") as part of the Cachuma Project Section 7 Re-Consultation. The first set of comments on Reclamation's BA outline (that was to be presented to NMFS on June 23, 2011), was discussed and submitted to Reclamation based on a joint action by the ID No.1, Parent District and CCRB (JDCA agencies) managers, attorneys (two attorneys for CCRB) and consultants. Keeping in mind that Reclamation provided the outline on June 22nd at 3:41 pm, it was requested that the JDCA agencies provide their comments back to Reclamation prior to a 3:00pm deadline on June 23, 2011. Reclamation revised its outline only incorporating some of the comments provided by ID No.1, CCRB and the Parent District which was sent to NMFS.

This was the fust formal interaction with between the three JDCA agencies and USBR in the reconsultation process and it was the consensus of the JDCA agencies that USBR could have been more engaging and cooperative in this first round of re-consultation. It was the hope that Reclamation will be more amenable to our involvement. It is expected that the JDCA agencies will continue to implement and follow through with the cooperative process through the Reclamation/NMFS re-consultation and BO development.

A conference call took place on July 7 between representatives of USBR, ID No.1 , Parent District and CCRB to receive an update from USBR regarding the draft outline for the Biological Assessment ("BA''). USBR considers the outline a skeleton as a starting point in the preparation of the BA and has now confirmed that the ID No.1, Parent District and CCRB will be significantly involved in working with USBR in the preparation of that document. The next meeting is scheduled for August 15th with NMFS to continue to formulate the draft BA outline and to review the BO Compliance Binder materials.

A re-consultation meeting between the NMFS, USBR and the Cachuma Advocacy group (ID No.1, CCRB and the Parent District) took place on August 22, 2011 to discuss the expanded outline and the 2000 BO Compliance Binder. NMFS staff expects a "new" Biological Assessment to include a revised baseline with the creek passage barrier projects. They acknowledged the Quieta Creek enhancements and other tributary projects that are not in the 2000 BOas voluntary. USBR, ID No.1 , Parent District and CCRB will work together to develop the BA. Because of time constraints, the Compliance Binder review will take place during another meeting; which has not yet been scheduled.

A re-consultation coordination model was developed to organize the local participants (Parent District, ID No.1 and CCRB) in the Section 7 process with Reclamation and provide a procedure to effectively communicate and make decisions among the parties. The model also provides a communication tree among the agencies including Reclamation and the consultants.

Regular conference calls between the Parent District, ID No.1 and CCRB with consultants have occurred over the past month and during the preparation of the BA draft project description annotated outline. The core group will be attending a meeting with Reclamation on October 18th in Fresno to refine the annotated outline.

The meeting on October 18lll included Reclamation staff, CCRB and SYRWCD representatives, and ID No.1's special legal counsel. There was a review of the expanded and annotated Project Description outline for the Biological Assessment (BA). Reclamation will be providing technical and general comments to the document. Reclamation will also work with the three parties to establish a schedule for the preparation of the BA.

Dah i/C:/sywd/board/Consent Agenda August 2 1,201 8 14

A conference call is schedule with Reclamation, ID No.1, Parent District and CCRB on January 13 to djscuss "take" information and report recently released and submitted by COMB directly to NMFS.

A meeting was held on November 17 with the NMFS to discuss the Southern Steelhead Recovery Plan. NMFS representatives Penny Ruvelas, Mark Cappelli and staff presented to ID No.1, SYRWCD, and CCRB the plan elements that are non-regulatory but used as guidelines for recovery of the Southern Steelhead in the Santa Ynez River. Although not formally released, a point by point explanation of the elements, including flow regimes, habitat improvements, ground water monitoring, Bradbury Dam upstream tributaries and passage barrier mitigations, and target populations.

The Recovery Plan was released at the beginning of January 2012 with recovery costs for 8 creek and river systems, primarily the Santa Ynez River of $389 million.

A schedule for the development of the Biological Assessment was jointly prepared IDl , CCRB and USBR to submit to the NMFS.

In June, the NMFS requested RFP's soliciting consultants to conduct flow, habitat and hydrologic studies in lower reach of the SY River below Bradbury Dam. The way in which that is being done is not compatible with the obligation NMFS has to "cooperate" with State and Local agencies to resolve water resource issues "in concert with" the conservation of endangered species. (ESA Section 2(c)(2)). This issue is being raised before the United States District Court in Santa Ana in the case of Bear Valley Mutual Water Company et.al. v. Fish and Wildlife Service. A ruling may occur before the Cachuma reconsultation is well advanced.

IDNo.l , the Parent District and CCRB are coordinating with USBR in the continuing development of the BA process and revising the schedule based on the recent actions ofNMFS. USBR forwarded to NMFS on July 20, 2012 the revised annotated outline and schedule for the preparation of the Biological Assessment.

The NMFS is pursing recovery as part of the future BO and through the Tri-County Fish Team (meeting on July 31) NMFS is soliciting input on priority projects from participants using the Threats-ByWatershed table which came out of the Southern Steelhead Recovery Plan. NMFS is formulating a Strategic Approach for implementing recovery in the Santa Ynez River. Caltrout has replaced Nikka Knight with Kurt Zimmerman, an attorney as its lead representative for the Santa Ynez and Ventura Watersheds. Caltrout is establishing an office in Ventura.

In a letter from the NMFS to Reclamation on October 22, 2012, Reclamation received a response to the July 20th submittal that only addressed the Draft BA schedule; rejecting the June 30, 2012 submittal date. The revised NMFS date of delivery for a Draft BAas determined by NMFS is January 1, 2013, along with NMFS's denial to provide the new scientific data and reports it conducted. USBR and the collaborating agencies decided that the NMFS delivery date was impractical and proposed the submittal of the Draft BA by May 30, 2013.

A significant work effort is being made by ID No.I , CCRB and the Parent District consultants and staff to develop and prepare sections of the BA for review by Reclamation. Many studies are being conducted which will be incorporated in the BA. A cost sharing agreement for legal resources between CCRB (88.42%) and ID No. I (11.58%) was executed in mid-December. This agreement was ratified by the CCRB parties following the CCRB meeting. Since early December, Greg Wilkinson is looked to and directed in preparing certain tasks, reviewing all elements for the record, and to marshal this BA effort.

USBR has confirmed its need to have the Draft BA even though its review and comment time frame has not met the deadlines. The Draft BA is to be submitted on June 28 to USBR staff.

Dahi/C:/sywd!board/Consent Agenda August 2 1, 2018 15

A limited number of the Draft BA chapters are being revised and re-written based on discussions with advocacy parties. USBR is aware of the revisions with a deadline for submittal of all chapters on August 23,2013.

The USBR Area Manager has determined that USBR will complete the Draft BA for submittal to NMFS by Mid-October 2013. The USBR decision was based on a demand Jetter from CCRB indicating it will not deliver the remaining chapters to USBR until December 20, 2013.

On October 2, CCRB Board gave its approval to the Entrix to release chapters 4, 5, 6, 11 and the executive summary to USBR. The District provided comments on all chapters of the Draft BA and submitted additional information to USBR on October 8, 2013.

USBR is planning to submit the Draft BA to NMFS by mid-November 2013. USBR is no longer participating on the monthly calls due to conflicts.

Kate Rees, CCRB manager announced her retirement on January 31, 2014.

On November 21, 2013 USBR submitted the draft BA to NMFS. In a meeting between USBR and the downstream interests, including the SYRWCD and ID No.1 representatives only on November 25, 2013, USBR confirmed incorporating the most recent comments submitted by the downstream interests and other comments submitted by the south coast. USBR did make modifications. A copy of the draft BA will be forwarded by USBR to the District.

NMFS responded USBR on April 8, 2014 indicating the sufficiency of the draft BA with several additional data requirements as part of "consultation" including a discrepancy in the South Coast Member Units operational yield versus apparent over-diversion of water deliveries to the south coast with the issue of the absence of reductions in deliveries at I 00,000 AF. Other data needs include south coast stream crossings and the inter-related south coast water conveyance systems. USBR responded on May 27, 2014 acknowledging the data requests and to work with NMFS and providing a Consultation schedule with at Final BOon April15, 2015.

At a meeting held in August with Reclamation management, it was made clear that the Section 7 consultation will be between the two Federal agencies - USBR and MNFS. The Applicant Status requested jointly by CCRB, ID No.I was denied by USBR but collaboration will be considered.

A meeting with USBR and ID1, SYRWCD and CCRB was held on October 27 at the SCCAO in Fresno to discuss the outlet works and the temporary and permanent plans, the Drought Operations Draft BA and the relationships between the agencies in the Cachuma Project. There was indication that NMFS will likely release a Draft Biological Opinion in January 2015. This is well ahead of the planned timing in midspring.

USBR met with NMFS on November 20, 2014 as part of the formal re-consultation. A follow up meeting between USBR, ID No.I, SYRWCD, and CCRB is scheduled for December 9, 2014.

On December 18, 2014, USBR formally requested an extension of 120 days for the consultation as a result of the December 9, 2014 meeting with NMFS. The purpose is to allow time provide NMFS with additional information as requested in their April 8, August 4, and September 30, 2014 letters. The NMFS Draft Biological Opinion is expected to be issued to USBR around May 30, 2015.

NMFS has requested USBR provide additional analysis and evaluation of the flow and habitat conditions downstream of Bradbury Dam among other informational requests related to migrant trapping data.

Dah 1/C:/sywd/board/Consent Agenda August 2 1, 20 I 8 16

CCRB and Cal Strategies met with USBR on Tuesday May 5, 2015 unilaterally requested inserting the passage barrier removal projects on the tributaries (Quiota Creek) along the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam into the Draft 2015 BO. Statements of"Assurances" were made by CCRB working with COMB to implement passage barrier removal in the SY River watershed and on the South Coast tributaries. Neither ID No.1 nor the Parent District was aware of the meeting or the discussion and decision by CCRB. ID No.1 will be contacting USBR. This issue has not been resolved.

Following a response letter to CCRB related to the above meeting with USBR and memorandum related to tributary commitments in the future, several calls and meetings have occurred between the JDCA parties to resolve issues.

There is information that a draft Biological Opinion may be released by NMFS in October 2015.

The Trush report prepared by Humboldt State University River Institute for Steelhead migration in the Santa Ynez River that may be included in the draft BO by NMFS is being peer reviewed by IDl and now CCRB expert consultants.

According to a COMB report at the meeting on March 7, the 2012 monitoring report was submitted to USBR and the 2013 draft report is being prepared by COMB biology staff. The reports have not been distributed to CCRB or ID No.1 responsible for these activities under the 2001 MOU.

On April 5, 2016, IDl received a link to the Draft Annual Monitoring Plan from Entrix rather than from COMB. IDl staff requested that COMB send all correspondence related to fisheries documentation directly to IDl management. COMB staff requested comments by April 20, 2014.

ID No.1 and the SYRWCD in conjunction with CCRB submitted comments on the HSU Trush report on July 21, 2016 to Reclamation and the NMFS for incorporation into the administrative record.

According to the NMFS comment letter dated December 8, 2016 to the State Water Resources Control Board regarding its release of the 2016 Draft Water Right Order, "NMFS is in the process of reviewing and discussing the draft 2016 biological opinion with BOR". It is likely that a draft BO, which is expected to be a "Jeopardy" opinion, will contain greater flows, have passage requirements as indicated by NMFS in the past, and recovery plan elements and terms imbedded including significantly higher flows for fish releases, fish passage around Bradbury Dam and return, and other protections for recovery of the listed steelbead. NMFS indicated in its comment letter to the SWRCB to incorporate the 2016 BO, thus the issuance is expected in the very near term.

ID No.1 management and Special Legal Counsel continue to monitor and are prepared to comment once the Public Draft is issued. ID No.1 was denied "applicant status" by USBR as a contracting party to Cachuma Project that had federal recognition. Therefore, comments on the Public Draft BO will be submitted to NMFS. The County was also recently denied "applicant status".

No further information has been available on the timing of a Public Draft BO issuance.

CA-6. Cachuma Project -Water Supply and Water Service Contract

The water delivery order for WY 2014-15 has been submitted to USBR with a 55% reduction in entitlement deliveries beginning October 1, 2014. With the DWR Table "A" allocation at 20%, plus SWP water purchased through the SWPP by south coast member along with prior year carryover, the amounts should suffice to meet all exchange requirements in WY 2015. However, Goleta Water District has taken delivery of its SWP allocation and therefore the South Coast parties cannot effectuate the terms of the

Dahl/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 20 I 8 17

Exchange Agreement. This is being reviewed by the District's Special Legal Counsel BB&K for a recommendation of appropriate action.

A meeting is being called by CCW A to reconcile how to allocate the Santa Ynez Exchange water among the South Coast remaining agencies pursuant to the Exchange Agreement. The allocation methodology in the Exchange Agreement does not address a south coast party opting out with actual procedures. A call with all the parties to the Exchange Agreement is expected in June to outline the issues and then develop an allocation methodology, if possible within the terms and conditions of the Exchange Agreement.

The Exchange Agreement terms have not yet been reconciled between the parties and a meeting is scheduled on July 15th to discuss the South Coast Exchange water deficiencies.

The Exchange Agreement is being effectuated by the City of Santa Barbara, Montecito Water District and to certain level, Carpinteria Valley Water District with each of their SWP allocations, carryover and purchased water. ID No.1 remains whole at this time even with Goleta Water District not in the exchange due to its decision to move its entire SWP allocation to Cachuma without exchanging with IDNo.l m accordance with the Agreement.

As of September 4, 2015, ID No. 1 transferred its 2013-2014 Cachuma Project Carryover water to Montecito Water District that was to be exchanged in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 with the participating parties. ID No.1's 750 AF of Carryover water was subject to evaporation losses of up to 65 AF per month and 25 AF per month for fish releases to Hilton Creek. In return, the District received $1 ,015 per acre foot of water transferred. There is approximately 50 AF of Carryover water remaining for direct delivery to the SB County Park that is served by ID No.1.

USBR announced that will be zero (0) allocation of Project water to the Cachuma Member Units as of October 1, 2015 for the next water year.

USBR is considering the status and definition of use for the 12,000 AF water in the minimum pooL USBR staff also provided a minimum level of 604.50' which is the lowest point in the lake above the inlet sill to the penstock at elevation 600.00'.

USBR continues to allocate zero water for 2016. In addition, water accruing from the Tecolote Tunnel Yield is not being allocated but used to offset a portion of the lake evaporation rather than deducted from Project Carry Over water per the Master Contract. However, Reclamation defined in its CEC released in April 2016 that the minimum pool water shall not be available to divert through the south coast's Barge relocation nor will the WR 89-18 water and fish account water.

COMB relocated the barge that delivers water to the South Coast agencies prior to the downstream water rights releases began on July 12. The new location is adjacent to the County Park.

The inequities of the 2015/2016 "unallocated water" and "unaccounted for" water delivered to the South Coast CMU's remains an issue and have been contested by ID No.1. A response from USBR is pending. Fol1owing a meeting with USBR on September 6, 2016 when presented the inequities due to tunnel infiltration credits and unaccounted for water delivered to the south coast, those inequities continue to increase with this new water year. No formal resolution between IDl , USBR and the County Water Agency has been accomplished.

The Santa Barbara County Water Agency submitted to USBR the annual request for allocation from the Cachuma Project. This was historically done by COMB, however, SBCW A has taken back this role in accordance with the Master Contract. There was zero allocation issued by USBR starting on October 1, 2016.

Dahi/C:/sywd!board/Conscnt Agenda August 2 1, 20 18 18

USBR will institute an evaporation scenario, proposed by SB County, that both Project carryover water and SWP will evaporate proportional to the total lake volume. The theory being the Minimum Pool will evaporate at a given level anyway, and with some incremental storage in the lake will incrementally increase evaporate so should be accounted for as such. The member Units have stated that except for Goleta(- 500 AF) and to a minimal extent City of SB, and furthermore to a much lesser extent IDl (for the Park), will exhaust all the CCO by December 1, 2016. This is effective on January 1, 2017.

On March 17, 2017 the CMU managers and technical staff met with the County Water Agency staff to compare the independent water supply analysis prepared by each CMU and the County based on the "Available Project Water" and for supporting a mid-year allocation from USBR. Carpinteria VaHey WD conducted extensive modeling based on a two year allocation outlook and differing percentages of a midyear allocation and remaining balances, while considering most factors affecting the water supply in the lake. ID No.1, in conjunction with Stetson Engineers verified Carpinteria's model and also prepared ID No.1's modeling effort confirming all other sources of stored and produced water being considered. After deliberation with the County and between the CMU's, it was determined that a mid-year allocation be requested of USBR in the amount of 40% or 10,285.6 AF of the annual 25,714 AF operational yield. Each CMU would receive its prorated share of the mid-year allocation in accordance with the Master Contract.

USBR approved a 40% mid-year allocation adjustment on April 7, 2017 based on available Project water in storage with concurrence by the Cachuma Member Units. IDl took its first delivery of its share I ,060 AF of Cachuma Project water. A formal letter will authorize deliveries for the remainder of this year and next year's allocation of 40%.

SB County Water Agency has requested the Cachuma Member Units provide an allocation for WY 2017/18 in order to submit to USBR in accordance with the Master Contract. The Water Agency reacquired its responsibility from COMB and is now acting on behalf of the Member Units. The allocation requests are tied to the capital component of the Project, which was paid off in 20 15; however USBR is still requesting the allocations for accounting purposes. As previously agreed, USBR anticipates a 40% delivery next water year but there will be a statement in the request for a mid-year allocation modification should the rainfall season produce inflow. TD No.1's allocation request is due June 23, 201 7.

ID No.1 submitted its 2017-2018 40% allocation request and reserving its right for an increased allocation with an increase in water in storage.

A formal resolution to the inequities is expected with the accounting for new water in Cachuma and as part of the allocation process. IDl has a second letter to Reclamation prepared in part by Stetson Engineers to be sent late in the week of AprillO, 2017.

On May 30, 2017, a formal letter to USBR from the District requested a reconciliation of water supply inequities that occurred from 2011 to 20 I 7 associated with carryover evaporation charges, tunnel accretions, and un-accounted for water. 1D I requested that water be credited to its account. Neither USBR nor the County has responded.

A meeting was held with USBR and Santa Barbara County Water Agency on October I2, 2017 with no resolution.

ID#1 met with USBR Mid-Pacific Region and Area Office Directors and management on January 18, 2018 to discuss contract options. A follow up meeting with the Area Office staff is schedule for the end of February.

Dahi/C:/sywdlboard/Conscnt Agenda August 2 1, 201 8 19

Management was recently informed by the SCCAO Manager that USBR staff met with SB County representatives on Monday, March 12, 2018 to discuss the 2020 contract. Thls meeting did not include any Cachuma Member Unit representatives. The latest conversation with the SB County Water Agency Manager Fray Crease, on Thursday March 8, she indicated that the County would not accept or consider any other contracting arrangement; only the current USBR and SB County Master Contract. ID No.I has had several meetings with USBR in order to seek contract options. No final determination has been made byUSBR.

Management is meeting with USBR Regional Director on May 9, 2018 to continue discussions of contracting options.

ID No.I management met with the USBR Regional Director, two Deputy Directors and staff to continue to promote contracting option for the upcoming Water Service Contract in 2020. USBR will explore a contract assignment as well as a multi-party contract.

No response from USBR regarding contract options.

The Exchange Agreement between IDI and the south coast Cachurna Member Units is dependent on two factors: 1) Cachuma Project water availability and allocation to ID 1; and, 2) Sufficient and equal amount of South Coast SWP water to exchange with ID1 . Because there is zero allocation of Cachuma Project water, the Exchange Agreement remains inactive. Once USBR determines a mid-year allocation, all ID No.1's Cachuma allocation will be exchanged for an equal amount of the south coast participants SWP water.

With the mid-year allocation in water year 2016-17, IDl will have 1,060 AF of its Cachuma Project available supply to exchange from April 7, 2017 to September 30, 2017. The Exchange water will be balance with the first priority Article 21 water and the MetWD exchange.

Currently, the Cachuma Exchange water is occurring with this year's 40% allocation and beginning on October I 5\ the new water year, there will be 1,042 AF of water exchanged.

USBR issued its allocation on November 4, 2017 of a 40% delivery to the Member Units retroactive to October 1, 2017. A mid-year adjustment would be considered based on precipitation and runoff in the lake.

With a 20% delivery allocation from the SWP and the reduced allocation from USBR, the South Coast will have enough SWP to effectuate the Exchange Agreement this year. Should the SWP allocation be reduced as was anticipated to I 0%, this would cause an exchange shortage.

With 35% SWP allocation the south coast will have enough SWP water to exchange this water year.

Contract Number 175r-1802R (Master Contract) expires in 2020 for water service to the Cachuma Member Units (CMU's). The County Water initiated discussions with USBR on November 18, 2016

Dah 1/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21, 2018 20

regarding the process and protocols for negotiations of a new water service contract. The Water Agency has been coordinating with the CMU's over the past month and prepared a "charter" or guideline paper for the formation of Steering Committee that will work on activities related to the negotiation process along with the terms and conditions of such water service contract. The Water Agency requested input from the CMU's. Upcoming meetings are scheduled over the next few months.

The Water Agency will bring its charter to begin the contracting process and provide a report to the Board of Directors of the SBWFC&WCD on May 2, 2017. At this time, none of the CMU's concur with the contracting arrangement.

At the May 2 County Board of Directors meeting to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the United States Bureau of Reclamation to request renewal of the Water Service Contract for the Cachuma Project and initiate negotiations with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, there were comments provided by IDl, the City of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria Valley WD opposing this action until such time to allow to explore contract options and engage all the Cachuma Member Units in this process. As stated by the County, this is a process between County and the USBR but the County will allow one representative of the CMU's to attend meetings between USBR and the County only. Director Hartmann indicted that the County's purpose in renegotiating this contract is to protect the downstream interests, the environment, and public trust resources. Other discussion related to the County's role in water supply. Tile north County Directors did not care about this action. The letter and action was approved 5-0.

Tile County is now scheduling "private" meetings with USBR beginning in May and June and to initiate negotiations. The CMU's are not included until the public meetings are scheduled.

Meetings are now being organized by the Member Unit managers regarding the County's action and its process.

No technical sessions or negotiation meetings with Reclamation or the County are schedule as of August 14, 2018.

USBR will be conducting its 5-year inspection of water records and compliance with the Master and Member Unit Contracts. USBR representatives from the Regional office, South Central California Area Office and Denver Services will be at ID No.I on September 19, 2012. USBR has transferred water conservation division to the Mid-Pacific region. District staff will be meeting with MP region staff to discuss conservation plans and exemptions applicable to the District. USBR provided a draft CCR checklist on November 8, 2012 indicating that ID No.1 complies with all elements of the Master Contract.

USBR solicitor has detennined that in accordance with Master Contract and specifically under CVPIA criteria (although ID No.1 is not in the CVP), ID No.1 is required to prepare and submit to USBR a water conservation plan for its Project Water; 863 AF annually of M&I water and separately for 1, 788 AF of Irrigation water. The District has other sources of local water supply (Uplands groundwater and licenses in the SY River) that are not under the jurisdiction of USBR and not within the Master Contract or CVPIA which are not reportable in a USBR water conservation plan.

The District is completing its updated and required draft water conservation plan and best management practices (BMP's) for submittal to USBR. This will require revisions to incorporate the City of Solvang because the District's boundaries for water service include the City's residents.

The conservation plan update was submitted to Reclamation in March 2015.

Dahi/C:/sywdlboard/Consent Agenda August 21 , 2018 21

USBR through the CUWCC is requesting further water conservation and BMP information within ID No.1's service area.

USBR will be conducting its 5-year inspection of water records and compliance with the Master and Member Unit Contracts. USBR representatives from the Regional office, South Central California Area Office and Denver Services will be at ID No. I on August 23 and 24,2016. ID No.1 submitted comments and provided further information to USBR by September 6, 2016.

ID No.1 will be preparing and submitting the USBR required crop report update by the May 1, 2018 deadline.

CA-7. Actions taken during emergency situation in New York/Washington DC on September 11,2001

DHS has distributed the Terrorist Threat Reporting Guide for Critical Infrastructure. This is a joint guidance document distributed by Federal Homeland Security and FBI for Owners and Operators of critical infrastructure. No advisories are in effect.

Dahl/C:/sywd!board/Consent Agenda August 2 1, 2018 22

SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ID#1 -- 2018 DELIVERY 31-Jul-18

I New Cachuma WY Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned

Delivery Schedule 2018 Allocation AF Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Table "A" EntitlemenU1 35 0 0 0 0 5 5 10 10 5 0 0 Drought Buffer 70 Q Q Q Q 1Q 10 20 15 15 Q Q Exchange less Cach Park /2 1035 0 0 0 0 72 290 372 200 101 75 0 Carryover/Article 21/ Solvang 140 0 0 0 0 20 25 35 35 20 5 0

I TOTAL 1280 0 0 0 0 107 330 437 260 141 80 0

Cachuma Park/3 I 26 I 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 River Wells- 6.0 CFS 75 70 110 164 101 0 0 164 166 125 99 River Wells - 4.0 CFS 0 0 0 55 79 0 0 120 125 95 85 Upland Wells 60 170 28 65 119 136 152 199 190 167 170

ITotal Production 136 242 141 285 408 469 592 746 625 469 356

10 Yr. Average Production 150 136 278 402 562 657 778 746 625 469 356

4.0 cfs River Maximum Production in AF 49.2 44 246 238 246 238 238 246 238 246 142.8 6.0 cfs River Maximum Production in AF 92.2 83.3 368.9 357 368.9 357 357 368.9 357 369.3 223.1 Note/1 Reflects the SWP deliveries for 2018 WY = 35% of entitlement or 245 AF less 140 AF of 2017 transfer water from Solvang returned; SWP Total105 AF Cachuma Project 40% or 1,060 AF as of October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. A mid-year allocation may occur. Note /2 Blue text: Cachuma Exchange water available from Oct 1, 2017-18 w/ 40% Allocation 1,037 AF.

Cachuma Project Total Allocation for WY2017-1 8 is 1,060 AF. South Coast MU must provide full Exchange amount;

Note /3 Cachuma Project water estimated delivery to SB County Park of Cachuma Water year 2017-1 8 is 25 af.

I ::! __ ·· .· -= -~- _:~-600

500

i ~00 ~

300

200

1 100

---- --·

L0

___ J~ _ _ Fe_b _ _

_ .. ,

, ____ .,...., .•·

~-

Mar Apr

-----·- ·~ - · -- -- - --

May Jun Jul Aug Sep

-

-----

-~

--

--- -

Oct Nov Dec

Dec Delivery TotaU 0 Q 0 0 0

2 60 35 95 192

192

49.2 92.2

o Upland Wells

D River Wells

o Tumback Pool 8

j5 i

70 1035 140

1280

26 11 34 594

1552 4585

5350

I • Exchange less Cach Park /1

D Drought Buffer

DID#1 Contract Entitlement

- - J

U.S. Drought Monitor

California

-. ~ ~

August 7, 2018 (Released Thursday, Aug. 9, 2018)

Valid 8 a.m. EDT

Intensity:

DO Abnormally Dry

D1 Moderate Drought

D2 Severe Drought

- D3 Extreme Drought

- D4 Exceptional Drought

The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions. Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary for forecast statements.

Author: Richard Tinker CPC/NOAAINWS/NCEP

USDA ~ tfl\ ~1 f'·~Of~ ® e. ' j

~,~,~·

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

-1/) Q)

.s:::. C.)

c ·--c 0 :;:; ns -Q.

C.) Q) .... a. >. -.s:::. ...... c 0 :E ->. -·-ns 0 Q)

> -ns :I E :I (.)

100

95

90

85

80

75

7 0 j 65

60

55

50

45 1

40 I

35

30 1

25

20

1 5 I I

10

5

North Sierra Precipitation : 8-Station Index, August 13, 2018 --- -- __.,...- Mounf Shasta-City- - ~- - - - -- - ~ . 1

~. Shasta Dam • • • Percent of Average for thiS Date: 81 %

"

• ----~Mineral _' • 1

" ~ _.,......- Quincy ~ .: • ·· . 94.7 · .. ~Brush Creek •• 2016-2017 Daily Precip (wettest) ~....-- sierraville RS - 1982 1983 (2 d t)

• ~Blue Canyon · . • • • n Wettes ... 88 .5

1997 -1998 82.4

I

-.. · ~

c 0

...... ns ...... Q.

C.)

'P\vera~fe:·( ,1,96~':20 15) 51 .8 ~

'"" .

a. .... ns Q)

>-.... Q)

Current Daily Preci/

2014-2015 Daily Preci -ns 37 .2 3:

1976-1977(2nd driest & driest thru AugJ. 19.0

I

ns ...... 0 1-

0 I «7 --- • . ......----~- -- - - --- - --T - - --.-- ~-- - --,.--- - ·- - .-- --· -· _,... - __ _._,_ ·-

Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Water Year (October 1 - September 30)

Santa Barbara County - Flood Control District 130 Eaft Victoria S treet, Santa Barbara, CA 93101

805.568.3440 - www.coutttyofsb.org/pwd

(Monthly Depth Durations and Average Recurrence Intervals)

Station: 218 Station Type: Alert, Data Logger wffB

Station Name: S:mta Ynez Fire St~tion #32

Latitude: 343626 Longitude: 1200409

Elevation (ft): 600 Rainfall (in.)

_ __,_WY._..__~_...::S:.::et:.p _ _ __:Oo::cc:::.:tc__ _ _,_N"'o:..:v _ _ --'=D-,.ec,.,._ __ ..:-J~an~--.!..Fe~b"-------'M=ar.___~~pr May Jun Jul Aug WY

2010-ll 0.00 2.09 1.19 9.30 0.74 3.09 8.96 0.17 0.35 0.45 0.00 0.00 26.34 2011-12 0.00 0.60 2.72 0.33 1.57 0.46 2.58 3.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 l l.R9

2012-13 0.08 0.05 0.69 3.12 1.76 0.39 0 .71 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 .89 2013-14 0.01 0.38 0.87 0.23 0.00 3.05 2 .65 0.72 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 .92 2014-15 0.00 0.01 0.86 4.38 0.78 0.90 0.30 0.36 0.17 0.33 0 .02 0.00 8 . 11

2015-16 0.20 0.09 0.61 1.09 3.37 1.54 2.74 0.37 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.19

~2o~•~~~•~7 ___ ~o~.o.~o'----~1~.0~7 __ ~1~.2~2~-~2~.2~3 ___ ~6~.6~o _ _ ~8.~34~----~0.~51~----~o._;~9 ____ ~o~.J~5 ____ ~o.~o~o ____ ~o~oo"----__ --~o.~oo"----__ ~2o~.6~1~

Total 11.73 37.38 105.23 156.32 223.00 230.44 189.68 80.45 17.46 3.07 0.70 1.19 1058.65 N 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

Mean 0.20 0.56 1.57 2.33 3.33 3.44 2.83 1.20 0.26 0.05 0.01 0.02 15.80 Max 4. 10 4.88 9_95 9.30 15 .80 16.20 11.60 5 96 2.06 0.61 0 .38 0.79 36.36

StdDcv 0.62

CV 3.05 Reg CV 2.68

Reg Skew 3.80

FIC 1.00

0 .81

1.44 1.28 1.80 1.00

Average Recurrence Ioten·als (in Years}

s 10 25 50

100 200 500

0.00 0.35

0.78 1.44

2.00 2.57 3.18 4.39

0 .36

1.01

1.50 2.12 2.59 306 3.52 4.30

l.59 1.01 1.03 1.40 1.00

1.20 2.72

3.74 5.02 5.94 6.86 777

9.19

2. 14 0.92 0.84 1.00 1.00

2.02

3.82 4.96 6.33 7.3 1 8.25 9_17

10.51

3.25 0.98 0.90

!.60

1.00

2.58 5.37

7.31 9.80

11.66

13.48

15.28 18.25

Page 2 of 2

3.47 1.01 0_99

1.10

1.00

2 .83 5.99 8.00

10.45 12.26

13.96

15.63 18.08

2.70 0 .96 0 .87 uo 1.00

2 .39 4.68 6. 13 1.90 9.21

10.44

11.65 13.42

1.32 LI D Lll l.70 1.00

0.84

2.08

2.96 4.1 I 4 .95 5.79 6 .63 8.0 1

0.46 1.75 1.83 2.60 1.00

0.08

0.49

0.84 1.34 1.73 2.13 2.54 324

0.13 2.78 2.91 3.60

1.00

0.00

0.09 0. 19 0.35 0.48 0.61

0.75 1,03

0.05 4.69 3 81 4.40 1.00

0.00

0.02 0.05 0. 10 0. 14 0.19 0.24

0.34

0.10 7.56 5.74 0 .48 410 0.44 4.80 UO 1.00 1.00

0.00

0.02 0.08 0.17 0.26 0.35

0.44 0.64

14.55

21.01 25.12 30.!2 33.81 37.28

40.69 45.70

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMA TION-CACHUMA PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2018 LAKE CACHUMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE August 1 , 2018

DAY B..EV STORAGE COMPUTED* CCWA PRECIPON RB..EASE - AF. EVAP PRECIP ACRE-FEET INFLOW INFLOW RES. SURF. ttL TON AF. INCH INCHES

IN LAKE CHANGE AF. AF. AF. TUNNB.. CREEK OUTLET SPILLWAY

701.67 74,878 1 701 .64 74,829 -49 11 .3 39.5 .0 55.6 4.7 6.3 .0 33.2 .300 .00 2 701.61 74,780 -49 13.6 41 .1 .0 59.6 4.8 7.2 .0 32.1 .290 .00 3 701.56 74,699 -81 20.4 41.0 .0 95.0 4.8 7.2 .0 35.4 .320 .00 4 701 .49 74,586 -113 -3.4 36.7 .0 93.5 4.7 8.3 .0 39.8 .360 .00 5 701.42 74,473 -113 13.9 32.2 .0 115.1 4.7 7.3 .0 32.0 .290 .00

6 701.36 74,376 -97 17.6 34.9 .0 106.6 4.7 7.3 .0 30.9 .280 .00 7 701 .30 74,279 -97 29.6 32.0 .0 104.1 4.7 8 .3 .0 41.5 .380 .00 8 701.24 74,182 -97 9.0 32.1 .0 84.6 4.6 7.4 .0 41.5 .380 .00 9 701 .19 74,085 -97 -13.4 40.2 .0 73.7 4.7 8.3 .0 37.1 .340 .00 10 701.14 74,021 -64 33.2 38.6 .0 81.3 4.6 7.4 .0 42.5 .390 .00

11 701 .07 73,892 -129 -15.3 36.5 .0 87.1 4.7 8.3 .0 50.1 .460 .00 12 701.04 73,859 -33 29.1 36.5 .0 52.9 4.6 8.4 .0 32.7 .300 .00 13 701 .00 73,795 -64 -15.9 36.5 .0 58.4 4.6 7.4 .0 14.2 .130 .00 14 700.95 73,714 -81 12.1 36.5 .0 82.9 4.7 8.3 .0 33.7 .310 .00 15 700.89 73,617 -97 11 .9 35.7 .0 88.0 4.6 7.4 .0 44.6 .410 .00

16 700.84 73,536 -81 1.0 35.7 .0 71 .0 4.6 8.4 .0 33.7 .310 .00 17 700.80 73,471 -65 20.4 35.7 .0 61 .3 4.6 7.4 .0 47.8 .440 .00 18 700.75 73,391 -80 -3.8 35.6 .0 62.2 4.7 12.3 .0 32.6 .300 .00 19 700.72 73,342 -49 9.2 35.6 .0 64.4 4.6 7.4 .0 17.4 .160 .00 20 700.68 73,278 -64 29.7 41 .3 .0 78.5 4.6 7.4 .0 44.5 .410 .00

21 700.62 73,181 -97 -1.6 41 .3 .0 100.8 4.7 7.3 .0 23.9 .220 .00 22 700.54 73,053 -128 4.8 41.3 .0 119.8 4.6 7.4 .0 42.3 .390 .00 23 700.51 73,005 -48 15.0 37.7 .0 61.6 4.6 7.4 .0 27.1 .250 .00 24 700.45 72,909 -96 -8 .0 37.7 .0 82.3 4.6 7.4 .0 31.4 .290 .00 25 700.39 72,813 -96 19.6 37.7 .0 106.7 4.7 7.3 .0 34.6 .320 .00

26 700.32 72,701 -112 12.2 37.7 .0 105.6 4.6 7.4 .0 44.3 .410 .00 27 700.27 72,621 -80 -3.9 37.7 .0 70.5 4.7 7.3 .0 31.3 .290 .00 28 700.22 72,541 -80 -25.7 37.7 .0 58.4 4.7 7.3 .0 21.6 .200 .00 29 700.19 72,477 -64 15.4 37.7 .0 60.8 4.5 7.5 .0 44.3 .410 .00 30 700.15 72,429 -48 16.5 37.7 .0 57.8 4.6 7.4 .0 32.4 .300 .00

31 700.12 72,381 -48 42.7 40.5 .0 69.6 4.7 7.3 .0 49.6 .460 .00

TOTAL (AF) -2,497 297.2 1,158.6 .0 2,469.7 144.3 238.7 .0 1,100.1 10.100 .00 (AVG) 73,559

CO~S:

• COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RaEASES, A ND EVAPORATION MINUS PRECIP ON THE RESERVOIR SURFACE AND CCWA INFLOW. DATA BASED ON 24-HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800. INDICATED OUTLETS RaEASEINCLUDEANY LEAKAGEAROUNDGATES.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMEJ'.IT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMI\ TION-CACHUMI\ PROJECT- CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2018 LAKE CACHUMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 13,2018

DAY ELEV STORAGE COMPUTED" CCWA PRECIPON RB..EASE - AF. EVAP PRECIP ACRE-FEET INFLOW INFLOW RES. SURF. HLTON AF. INCH INCHES

IN LAKE CHANGE AF. AF. AF. TUNNEL CREEK OUTLET SPILLWAY

700.12 72,381 1 700.07 72,285 - 96 -13.2 41.4 .0 73.4 4.6 7.4 .0 38.8 .360 .00 2 699.99 72,173 -112 -8.7 33.7 .0 92.0 10.8 7.3 .0 26.9 .250 .00 3 699.93 72,077 -96 14.4 32.2 .0 90.4 12.5 7.4 .0 32.3 .300 .00 4 699.87 71,981 -96 9.1 32.2 .0 92.4 12.5 2.3 .0 30.1 .280 .00 5 699.81 71,886 -95 7.4 36. 1 .0 81.8 12.4 2 .4 .0 41.9 .390 .00

6 699.76 71 ,806 -80 2.8 39.8 .0 66.0 12.5 3.3 .0 40.8 .380 .00 7 699.47 71,345 -461 -24.2 41.4 .0 99.4 11.0 322.8 .0 45.0 .420 .00 8 699.17 70,871 -474 -8 .0 37.8 .0 97.8 10.9 357.8 .0 37.3 .350 .00 9 698.90 70,444 -427 29.3 37.8 .0 98.4 3.1 345.8 .0 46.8 .440 .00 10 698.62 70,002 -442 - 15.5 34.1 .0 98.3 1.8 333.0 .0 27.5 .260 .00

11 698.36 69,597 -405 1.7 34.3 .0 71 .9 1.8 323.0 .0 44.3 .420 .00 12 698.1 0 69,192 -405 -25.7 37.6 .0 64.5 1.9 320.0 .0 30.5 .290 .00 13 697.85 68,802 -390 - 20.4 41 .9 .0 61.2 1.9 317 .0 .0 31.4 .300 .00

TOTAL (AF) -3,579 -51.0 480.3 .0 1,087.5 97.7 2,349.5 .0 473.6 4.440 .00 (AVG) 70,959

COM'.tlENTS· • COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RB.EASES, AND EVAPORATION MNUS PRECIP ON THE RESERVOIR SURFACE AND CCWA INFLOW. DATA BASED ON 24-HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800. INDICATED OUTLETS RaEASEINCLUDEANY LEAKAGE AROUND GATES

17-18 CACHUMA PROJECT ALLOCATION

CACHUMA OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BOARD WATER PRODUCTION AND WATER USE REPORT

FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2018 AND THE WATER YEAR TO DATE (WYTD) 11'

(All in rounded Acre Feet)

SCC WATER PRODUCTION: MONTH WYTD Cachuma Lake (Tee. Diversion) 1,796.3 12,032.4 Tecolote Tunnel Infiltration 102.0 880.1 Cachuma Lake (County Park) 2.0 14.3

Subtotal - Water Production 1,900.2 12,926.7

SCC WATER DELIVERIES: State Water Diversion 1,794.3 9,781.0 Cachuma Diversion 118.9 2,618.7 So. Coast Storage gainl(loss) (40.5) (33.2)

Subtotal - Water Deliveries 1,872.7 12,366.5

Total Water Production 1,900.2 12,926.7 Total Water Deliveries 1,872.7 12,366.5 Difference = Apparent Water Loss 27.6 560.2 % Apparent Water Loss 1.45% 4.33%

SCC APPARENT WATER LOSS ALLOCATION 12'

GWD SBCITY MWD CVWD TOTAL CURRENT MONTH CHARGE I (ADUSTMENT} 1' '

M&l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Subtotal Cachuma Project 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 {+) State Water Project 1.7 9.7 10.1 5.9 27.4

Total 1.9 9.7 10.1 5.9 27.6

WATER YEAR-TO-DATE CHARGE I (ADJUSTMEND M&l 9.9 0.0 0.0 37.0 46.9 AQriculture 7.4 0.0 0.0 49.1 56.5 Subtotal Cachuma Project 17.3 0.0 0.0 86.1 103.4 (+) State Water Project 20.3 183.3 218.1 35.3 457.0

Total 37.7 183.3 218.1 121.4 560.4

CACHUMA PROJECT WATER CHARGE GWD SBCITY MWD CVWD SYRID#1 TOTAL

CURRENT MONTH Water Usage

M&l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Agricultural 116.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NIA 116.9 Subtotal Project Water Use 116.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 118.9 (+)Apparent Water Loss 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 NIA 0.2 (+) Evaporative Loss 13) 19.9 69.3 17.6 0.4 0.0 107.1 Total Project Water Charge 137.0 69.3 17.6 0.4 2.0 226.2

WATER YEAR-TO-DATE Water Usage

M&l 1,097.3 0.0 0.0 289.3 14.3 1,400.8 Agricultural 834.2 0.0 0.0 385.7 NIA 1,219.9 Subtotal Project Water Use 1,931.5 0.0 0.0 675.1 14.3 2,620.8 (+)Apparent Water Loss 17.3 0.0 0.0 86.1 NIA 103.4 (+) Evaporative Loss 13

' 16 1.5 373.4 94.7 19.5 0.8 650.0 Total Project Water Charge(*) 2,1 10.3 373.4 94.7 780.7 15.0 3,374.2

(*)Project Water Charge is applied first to Carryover Water balance and then to Current Year Water Allocation

17-18 CACHUMA PROJECT ALLOCATION

CACHUMA OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BOARD WATER PRODUCTION AND WATER USE REPORT

FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2018 AND THE WATER YEAR TO DATE (WYTD) 111

(All in rounded Acre Feet)

CACHUMA PROJECT WATER BALANCE GWD SBCITY MWD CVWD SYRID#1

Project Water Carryover- 10/1/2017 3,088.0 3,988.0 1,011.0 800.0 16.0 Transfers/Adjustment 141 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(-) Project Water Charge (WYTD) 2,110.3 373.4 94.7 780.7 15.0 Balance Carryover Water 1,007.7 3,614.6 916.3 19.3 1.0

Current Year Allocation 151 3,728.0 3,311 .0 1,060.0 1,125.0 1,060.0 (-)Balance of Project Water Charge (WYTD) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net Allocation Available Before Adjustments 3,728.0 3,31 1.0 1,060.0 1 ,125.0 1,060.0

Adjustments to Net Allocation {WYTD} Carryover Balances Spilled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surplus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 State Water Exchange (SJ 130.0 87.0 87.0 58.0 (362.0) T ransfers/Adjustment l7l 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Balance Current Year Allocation 3,958.0 3,398.0 1,147.0 1,183.0 698.0

Total Cachuma Project Water Available 4,965.7 7,012.6 2,063.3 1,202.3 699.0

Footnotes (1) Water Year = October 1 through September 30 (2) Based on an correspondence from Michael Jackson, dated 09/15/17, which revised the approach to the assessment for

unaccounted-for water loss based on lake conditions (3) Per USBR, evaporation is applied to Cachuma Carryover and SWP water through standard contract formula effective April 1, 2017. (4) Adjustment for GWO November/December 2016 Evaporation Amount charged in error (+30AF). (5) Per USBR, 40% Allocation to Member Agencies, effective 10/1/17 (6) Per SWP Exchange Agrrnt GWD received 104 AF; City of SB received 70 AF; MWO received 70 AF and

CVWD received 46 AF from 10#1 in June 2018. (7) Transfer per Contract for Exchange Water with Thomas B. Bishop Company and GWD (100 AF) (8) Memo on ly - State Water Deliveries to Lake Cachuma for June 2018 (Total =1157 AF): MWO 263 AF; CVWO 175 AF

GWO 395 AF (Morehart 5 AF); City of S.B. 264 AF; and LaCumbre 50 AF: (Raytheon 5 AF)

TOTAL

8,903.0

30.0

3,374.2 5,558.8

10,284.0 0.0

10,284.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

10,384.0

15,942.8

California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)

CIMIS Daily Report Rendered in ENGLISH Units. Sunday, July 1, 2018 - Tuesday, July 31 , 2018 Printed on Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Santa Ynez- Central Coast Valleys - Station 64 Date ETo

(in) Precip

(in) Sol Rad {Ly/day)

Avg Vap Pres

(mBars)

Max Alr Temp

("F)

Min Air Temp

AvgAir Temp

Max Rei Hum (%)

Min Rei Hum (%)

Avg Rei Hum

Dew Point Avg Wind Wind Run

("F) ("F) (%) ("F) Speed (miles)

(mph)

71112018

71212018

0.26

0.24

0.00

0.00

7/3/2018 0.23 0.00

7/4/2018 0.26 0.00

7/5/2018 0.22 0.00

7/6/2018 0.31 R 0.00

717/2018 0.30 0.00

7/8/2018 0.31 R 0.00

7/9/2018 0.27 R 0.00

7/10/2018 0.30 0.00

7/11/2018 0.26 0.00

7112/2018 0.19 0.00

711312018 0.27 0.00

711412018 0. 24 0.00

7/15/2018 0.23 0.00

7/16/2018 0.25 0.00

7117/2018 0.25 0.00

7118/2018 0.22 0 .00

711912018 0 .26 0.00

7/2012018 0.26 0.00

7/21/2018 0.26 0.00

7/22/2018 0.26 0.00

7/2312018 0.23 0.00

7124/2018 0.26 0.00

7125/2018 0.28 0.00

7/26/2018 0.24 0.00

7/27/2018 0.23 0 .00

712812018 0.24 0.00

7129/2018 0 .25 0.00

713012018 0 .25 0.00

713112018 0.28 0.00

Tots/Avgs 7.91 0.00

713

680

686

742

594

709

693

701

600

708

693

472

692

669

662

669

682

583

660

653

668

676

608

645

648

607

604

612

611

601

659

652

15.2

15.8

87.2

83.4

15.7 80.8

15.2 83.6

14. 1 93.3

13.5 106.3 R

13.1 100.9 y

11.7 105.9 y

11 . 1 y 100.1 y

12.0 99.8 y

14.4 94.3

15.6 92.9

15.9 94.0

15.7 83.7

15. 3 83.3

15.2 89.5

15.2 89.8

16.2 90. 1

17 .3 95.6

17.8 94.0

16.7 91.4

15.6 92.1

16.2 89.9

15.4 94.0

14.3 101.4 y

14.6 92.0

14.6 87.0

14.8 93.2

15.0 98.2

14,7 97.9

14.7 101.1 y

14.9 93.1

52.2

55.7

55.5

52.0

48.6

51.7

57.5

59.5

56.1

60.3

55.0

59.7

56.5

57.2

55.7

54.8

55.9

56.3

57.5

62.1 y

58.5

56.5

56.9

54.0

52.5

53.0

54.5

53.6

53.3

54.1

53.9

55.5

68.2

66.8

66.2

68.3

66.3

77.1 y

76.9 y

79.2 R

76.6 y

77.3 y

69.9

70.5

71.1

66.9

66.1

68.0

68.2

70.5

74.6 y

75.2 y

71.7

71.1

69.2

69.9

73.2

67.5

66.1

67.0

71.5

71.7

74.6 y

70.9

90

96

92

88

95

94

75

65

63

69

88

83

96

95

93

93

92

95

88

86

93

90

97

94

90

97

95

97

97

93

90

89

36

45

48

43

29

17

19

15

16

20

31

32

33

44

44

38

37

40

37

36

35

29

39

33

22

34

36

34

27

28

23

32

65

70

55.8

56.8

72 56.8

64 55.8

64 53.8

43 y 52.6 y

41Y 51.7Y

-- R -- I

35 y 47.3 y

38 y 49.4 y

58 54.3

61 56.5

61 57.0

70 56.8

70 55.9

65 55.8

65 55.9

64 57.5

59 y 59.4 y

60 y 60. 1 y

63 58.4

60 56.5

66 57.5

62 56.2

51 54.1

63 54.6

67 54.7

65 55.0

57 55.5

56 54.9

50 y 54.8 y

60 55.4

4.6

4.6

4.9

4.5

4.0

4.9

4.6

4.5

4.4

4. 5

5.1

4.7

5.2

5.0

4.9

4.6

4.7

4.3

4.6

5.0

5. 1

4 .9

4.8

4.8

4 .9

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.6

4.8

4.9

4.7

iL. -·- ... __ ... --------·- FI~ __ Legend .. ·-·-- ____ J !I A- Historicai_Ayerag~ II I- Ignore ----- .. JL ... R -.£.~f out _of normal range J JL.. C or N - Not Collected Jl _ .. M - Missing Data =:JI S - Not in service I il H - Hourly M~=~:g or Flagged Jl Q- Related Sensor Missi~~ .J ... ~--- ~-~d~rat~~~-~ut ~f-rang_e _]

~ 1========~-~~--=- ~-~--=---==-====~r=====C=o=n=v=er=s=io~n~F=ac=t=o=rs==-==--~~r====·=· ~~~~~======~-J ·. ;:::1 ==·_!:Y~L ·=£~=~:!::/=2.=06=5:::;;:==W=/s=q.=m==:-IL_ ··- inches * 25.4 = mm IL (F-32) * 5/9 = c _ J 1_ ·- ~P.h * 0.447 = m/s II mBars * 0.1 = kPa II miles* 1.60934 = km _I

109.5

111.4

118.7

108.4

96.8

116.5

11 0.7

109.1

105.2

108.1

122.4

113.4

124.5

119.1

117.7

110.1

112.3

102.0

110.9

120.3

121.2

118.4

115.1

116.2

118.0

117.6

118.0

116.8

111 .2

116.2

116.9

114.0

Avg Soil Temp ("F)

78.4

78.9

79.1

79. 2

79.2

79.1

80.2

81.1

81.6 y

81.7 y

82.0 y

81.6 y

81.1

81.4

81 .0

80.7

80.9

81.0

81.2 y

82.1 y

82.5 y

82.4 y

82.1 y

81.9 y

81 .8 y

81.8 y

81.2 y

80.9

80.9

81.2 y

81 .3 y

81 .0

Santa Barbara County- Flood Control District 130 East Victoria Street, Santa Barbara CA 93101 - 805.568.3440 - www.countyofsb.org/pwd

Rainfall and Reservoir Summary

Updated 8am: 8/1/2018 Water Year: 2018 Storm Number: NA

Notes: Daily rainfall amounts are recorded as of Sam for the previous 24 hours. RainfalJ units are expressed in inches. All data on this page are from automated sensors, are preliminary, and subject to verification. *Each Water Year (WY) runs from Sept I through Aug 3 1 and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends Count) Real-Time Rain tall and Reservoir Website link >- h tt r ://w' '""-couJJtyofsb.org/ hydrology

Rainfall Location ID 24 hrs Storm Month Year* %to Date % ofYear* Oday(s)

Buellton (Fire Stn) 233 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.98 48% 48%

Cachuma Dam (USBR) 332 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.97 50% 50%

Carpinteria (Fire Stn) 208 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.04 52% 52%

Cuyama (Fire Stn) 436 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.90 51% 51%

Figueroa Mtn (USFS Stn) 421 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.86 65% 65%

Gibraltar Dam (City Facility) 230 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.71 44% 44%

Goleta (Fire Stn-Los Cameros) 440 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.14 50% 49%

Lompoc (City Hall) 439 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.60 59% 59%

Los Alamos (Fire Stn) 204 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.01 59% 59%

San Marcos Pass (USFS Stn) 212 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.38 54% 54%

Santa Barbara (County Bldg) 234 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.84 54% 54%

Santa Maria (City Pub.Works) 380 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.22 54% 54%

Santa Ynez (Fire Stn /Airport) 218 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 52% 52%

Sisquoc (Fire Stn) 256 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.97 59% 59%

County-wide percentage of "Normal-to-Date" rainfall : 54% - - --- - -

County-wide percentage of "Normal Water-Year" rainfall: 53% - - - --- -

County-wide percentage of "Normal Water-Year" calculated assuming no more rain through Aug. 31, 2018 (End ofWY2018).

AI (Antecedent Index I Soil Wetness)

6.0 and below = Wet (min. = 2.5) 6.1 - 9.0 = Moderate 9.1 and above = Dry (max.= 12.5)

Reservoir Elevations referenced to NGVD-29.

Reservoir Information **Cachuma is full and subject to spilling at elevation 750 ft. l lowever, the lake is surcharged to 753 ft. for fish release water. (Cachuma water storage is based on Dec 2013 capacity revision)

Spillway Current Max. Current Current Storage Storage E lev. Elev. Storage Storage Capacity Change Change (ft) (ft) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (%) Mo.(ac-ft) Year*(ac-ft)

Gibraltar Reservoir 1,400.00 1,396.34 4,968 4,155 83.6% 0 1,167

Cachuma Reservoir 753.** 700.07 193,305 72,301 37.4% 0 -16,486 '

Jameson Reservoir 2,224.00 2,205.37 5,144 3,090 60.1% 0 302

Twitchell Reservoir 651.50 NA 194,971 NA NA NA

AI

12.5

12.5

12.5

1.0 SCOPE

EXHIBIT" A"

INVESTMENT POLICY

SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATiON DISTRICT

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

This Investment Policy applies to all financial assets of the District. These funds are

accounted for in the annual District audit and include:

Debt Repayment Obligation Reserve

State Water Project Reserve

Repair and Replacement Reserve

Plant Expansion Reserve

Extension Fee Reserve

Contingency Reserve

Water Supply Development Fee Reserve

Funds not included in the policy include employee deferred compensation funds, if any.

2.0 PRUDENCE

Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then

prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the

management of their own affairs; not for speculation, but for investment, considering

the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The

standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent investor"

standard (California Government Code Section 53600.3) and shall be applied in the

context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with

written procedures and the Investment Policy and exercising due diligence shall be

relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price

changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and

appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

3.0 OBJECTIVES

As specified in California Government Code Section 53600.5, when investing,

reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling and managing public funds, the

primary objectives, in priority order, of the investment activities shall be:

1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment

program. Investments of the District shall be undertaken in a manner that

seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio to attain

this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on

individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the

remainder of the portfolio.

Exhibit "A" Investment Policy May 201S Page 1 of 4

2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable

the District to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated.

3. Return on Investments: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the

objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio.

4.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Authority to manage the investment program is derived from California Government

Code Sections S3600 et seq. Management responsibility for the investment program is

hereby delegated to the Treasurer, who shall establish written procedures for the

operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy.

Procedures should include references to safekeeping, PSA repurchase agreements, wire

transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking services contracts,

as appropriate. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons

responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment

transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions

undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of

subordinate officials. Under the provisions of California Government Code Section S3600.3, the Treasurer is a trustee and a fiduciary subject to the prudent investor

standard.

5.0 ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal

business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment

program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions.

6.0 AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEALERS

The District will maintain a list of financial institutions, selected on the basis of credit

worthiness, financial strength, experience and minimal capitalization authorized to

provide investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved

security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness who are authorized to provide

investment and financial advisory services in the State of California. No public deposit

shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by state laws.

For broker/dealers of government securities and other investments, the District shall

select only broker/dealers who are licensed and in good standing with the California

Department of Securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National

Association of Securities Dealers or other applicable self-regulatory organizations.

Exhibit "A" Investment Polley May 201S Page 2 of 4

Before engaging in investment transactions with a broker/dealer, the Treasurer shall

have received from said firm a signed Certification Form. This form shall attest that the

individual responsible for the District's account with the firm has reviewed the District

Investment Policy and that the firm understands the policy and intends to present

investment recommendations and transactions to the District that are appropriate

under the terms and conditions of the Investment Policy.

7.0 AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS

The District is empowered by California Government Code Section 53601 et seq. to

invest in the types of investments shown in Table 1. However, it has authorized its

Treasurer to invest only in the following:

A. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)

B. FDIC Insured Accounts.

Prohibited Investments. Under the provisions of California Government Code Section

53601.6 and Section 53631, the District shall not invest any funds covered by this

Investment Policy in inverse floaters, range notes, interest-only strips derived from

mortgage pools or any investment that may result in a zero interest accrual if held to

maturity.

8.0 COLLATERALIZATION

All certificates of deposits must be collateralized by the United States Treasury

Obligations. Collateral must be held by a third party and valued on a monthly basis. The

percentage of collateralization on repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements will

adhere to the amount required under California Government Code Section 53601(i) (2).

9.0 SAFEI<EEPING AND CUSTODY

All security transactions entered into by the District shall be conducted on delivery

versus-payment (DVP) basis. All securities purchased or acquired shall be delivered to

the District by book entry, physical delivery or by third party custodial agreement as

required by California Government Code Section 53601.

10.0 DIVERSIFICATION

The District will diversify its investments by security type and institution. It is the policy

of the District to diversify its investment portfolio. Assets shall be diversified to

eliminate the risk of loss resulting from over concentration of assets in a specific

maturity, a specific insurer or a specific class of securities. Diversification strategies shall

be determined and revised periodically. In establishing specific diversification

strategies, the following general policies and constraints shall apply:

(a) Portfolio maturities shall be matched versus liabilities to avoid undue

concentration in a specific maturity sector.

(b) Maturities selected shall provide for stability of income and liquidity.

Exhibit "A" Investment Policy May 2015 Page 3 of 4

(c) Disbursement and payroll dates shall be covered through maturities

investments, marketable United States Treasury, bills or other cash equivalent

instruments such as money market mutual funds.

11.0 REPORTING

In accordance with California Government Code Section 53646(b) (1), the Treasurer may

render a quarterly investment report to the legislative body of the local agency and shall be so submitted within 30 days of the end of the reporting quarter. The report shall

include a complete description of the portfolio, the type of investments, the issuers,

maturity dates, par values and the current market values of each component of the

portfolio, including funds managed for the District by third party contracted managers.

The report will also include the source of the portfolio valuation. As specified in

California Government Code Section 53646(e), if all funds are placed in IJl.IF, FDIC

insured accounts and/or in a county investment pool, the foregoing report elements may be replaced by copies of the latest statements from such institutions. The report

must also include (1) all investment actions executed since the latest report have been made in full compliance with the Investment Policy; and (2) the District will meet its

expenditure obligations for the next six months is required by California Government Code Section 53646(b) (2) and (3} respectively. The Treasurer shall maintain a complete

and timely record of all investment transactions.

12.0 INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION

The Investment Policy is attached to Resolution No. 735 as Exhibit "A" and is a part of

the resolution. It may be reviewed on an annual basis, and modifications must be

approved by the Board.

Exhibit "A" Investment Policy May 2015 Page 4 of 4

CGC Section

53601 (a) 53601 (b)

53601 (c)

53601 (d)

53601 (e)

53601 (f) 53601 (g)

53601 (h)

53601 (i)

53601 (j) 53 601 (k) 53601 (m)

53601 (n) 53601 (d)

53601 (d)

Table 1

INVESTMENTS AUTHORIZED UNDER CAUFO:RNIA

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53601

Investment Type Maximum Authorized Required Maturity LinUt (%) Rating

local Agency Bonds 5 Years None None U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes or Bonds 5 Years None None

State Registered Warrants, Notes or Bonds 5 Years None None Notes & Bonds of other Local Calif. Agencies 5 Years None None U.S. Agencies 5 Years None None Bankers Acceptances 1 270 Days 40% None Prime Commercial Paper 180 Days 15% or30% AI/PI Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 5 Years 30% None

Repurchase & Reverse Repurch. Agreements • 1 Yr/92 Days None/20% None Medium Term Corporate Notes 5 Years 30% A Money Market Mutual Funds & Mutual Funds u 5 Years 15% 2·AAA Collatt:!ral Bank Deposits 5 Years None None

Mortgage Pass-Through 5ecurltle5 5 Years 20% AA

local Agency Investment Fund (LA! F) N/A None None County Pooled Investment Funds N/A None None

See California Government Code Section 53601 (1} for limits" on use of reverse repurchase agreements. "'"* Mutual funds maturity may be defined as the weighted average maturity, money market mutual funds must have an

average maturity of 90 days or less, per SEC regulations.

See CGC 53601 for detailed summary of the limitations and special conditions that apply to each of the above listed investment securities. CGC 53601 is attached and included by reference In this Investment Policy.

1 No more than 30% of surplus funds may be invested in BanJcers Acceptances of any one commercial bank. 2 30% if dollilr weighted average maturity of all comrnerdill paper does not exceed 31 days. Commercial paper issUers must be organized and opera ling within U.S. and have total il5Sets in excess of $500 million.- and have "A" or higher rating for issuer's debt. other than commercial paper, by Moody's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases may not exceed 10% of outstanding paper of an issuing corporation.

Municipal Utility Disbict investments are controlled by Municipal Utilities District Act (Div 6 (commencing with Section 115Dl) of the Public Utilioes Code.)

= =

_E- FIELDMAN I ROLAPP & i\SSOCL'\ TES

To: Chtis Dahlstrom, General j'vianager

MEMORANDUM

Sant.'l Ynez River WTater Conservation District, ID No. 1

From: Robe11 Parr, Senior \lice P1:esident

Re: Reserves Rep011

Date: May 21,2013

We have been asked to review and assess the levels of reserve balances ofthe Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District #I (the "District") for conformance with prudent financial practices. In accordance with our assignment we have review District's waterrate study prepared by Black & Veatch, dated as of March I, 2013, staff reports and other items available to the public from the District's website.

TI1e District currently has reserves as follows:

$ 2,889,859 $ 2,601,898 $ 20,550 $ 174,166 $ 3,000,000

""Restrir::ted Reserve

Financial prudence suggests that reserves be segregated into two categories: liquidity and capital; water agencies in California generally this practice. Minimum amounts of reserves for capital and liquidity needs are based upon different rationales and are used for different purposes. The balance held for liquidity reserves generally is reliant upon an agency's cash flow between its revenues and expenses. Liquidity reserves are recommended to be set aside in the event of "disruption"' in cash flow; a disruption can occur from increased expenses or reduction in revenues; additionally, the disruption can be temporary or permanent. For example water treatment expenses can unexpectedly rise due to a temporary shortage of chemicals to treat water. Because revenues and expenses can vary in a given budgeted fiscal year, prudent financial practices suggest that liquidity reserves be held in the range of 60 to 90 days of operating expenses. This assures adequate reserves to allow an agency to meet its ordinary financial obligations without having to borrow annually for cash flow purposes.

Reserve Report 05 21 2013 (00075860-4) - I -

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 May21,2013 Page2

MEMORANDUM

For longer term, or permanent changes to cash flow, many agencies follow the practice of establishing a rate stabilization reserve that provides additional liquidity support in the event revenues or expenses are disrupted for an extended time period, for example where conservation reduces revenues for an unknown period, or loss of a significant customer results in permanent revenue loss. The intent of rate stabilization funds are to smooth out permanent longer term rate increases that would otherwise be burdensome to rate payers over a short period of time.

For example, due to conservation efforts, revenues may decline by twenty percent Rather than raise rates in one fiscal year by twenty percent to meet financial obligations a district will generally contribute funds from a rate stabilization fund to its revenue funds so that rates can be raised over two, three or four years.

A further requirement for liquidity reserves stems from the assumption of a risk that is not completely manageable yet presents financial liability. A common example is the assumption of liability for a separate agency, or the assumption of financial liability based upon changes in interest rates. An agency will commonly set aside certain moneys to meet the estimated liability and it is not uncommon to restrict such amount until the risk is eliminated thereby insuring that funding for the potential liability is always available.

Many utility agencies include a contingency or emergency reserve based upon a FEMA guideline to establish a reserve equal to up to 2% of capital assets to meet capital and operating expenses in the event of a calamity or emergency. This permits agencies to begin repairs and replacements immediately while awaiting insurance claims to be processed. Although this reserve level is based upon capital assets, many agencies authorize the use for capital or operating needs and for financial calamities.

Capital reserves are tailored to the specific future capital needs of an agency and depend upon an agency's capital planning_ Appropriate reserve levels depend upon how an agency intends to finance its capital program through a combination of debt, reserves, or pay-go. Capital structure and funding for specific projects talces months of detailed analysis of revenues, expenses and entails developing a sophisticated cash flow model to

. measure results under various alternative funding mechaaisms. Nevertheless a prudent capital reserves will maintain balances for the current budgeted fiscal year at I 00% and portions of the following fiscal years. For our purposes, we have assumed that the amounts listed in the above chart are adequate for capital purposes.

Prepared by

- F!ELDMAN I ROLAPP -==" ;. ,"¢'·0X'IAI rs

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 May 21,2013 Page3

MEMORANDUM

Below is our analysis of conceptual reserve levels for the District based upon our limited engagement.

$

$ 20,550

$ 3,483,056

$ 3,000,000

* Restricted Reserve

Our review of liquidity reserves for the District reveals that reserves set aside for liquidity are in the amount of approximately·$175,000. This represents approximately 8 days of operating expenses. We believe that tms is inadequate for any agency with more than $7.5 million in operating expenses. We would recommend building up a higher reserve balance over a period of three to six years.

Additionally, the District assumed the liability to malce debt service payments towards the State Water Project debt on behalf of the City of Solvang ("Solvang") in the event Solvang defaults on its obligation. Since the District cannot manage the risk of Solvang's default we recommend that the $3 million established to cover such a default be restricted by Board Resolution to such potential financial obligation and not be counted as part of the District's unrestricted reserves.

ln connection with the strategy regarding retiring existing debt, we do not recommend using nearly half of the District's unrestricted reserves to pay off debt when existing reserves do not adequately insulate the District from fluctuations in revenues or expenses.

Prepared by

FIELDMAN! ROLAPP .=" b ."1.!:!'.1.1LL\ll.~

WATER AGENCY FINANCE - OUR ExPERIENCE RUNS DEEP

We've been there before. Since 1966, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates has been a leading financial management parmer for California water agencies. From 1991 to 2005, we served as financial advisors for more California water and wastewater financings than any other firm.

Nun1bcr lY"Iarkct Financial Advisor of Issues Share R::wk

Public Financial Man:J.gcmcnr Inc 100 12.8% 2 Public Resourc~:S Advisory Group 68 8.7% 3 Kelling Norm cross & Nobriga 63 8.1% 4 Barclc Wells Associ:::tte.s 63 O'Brien Parrner5, Jnc. RBC Copi'"l Mnrkets Montague DeRose & As.sociares U.C Rod Gunn and Associates Inc EJ De La Rosa & Co Inc

' lHurr urtd Smi(T Srmru: 17mnuu FimJrlciu/ Sumititl Dnta CtJ., 2006

41 32 27 21 19

Practical approaches and effective solutions.

8.1% 5 5.3% 6 4.1% 7 35% 8

2.7°/o 9 2.4% 10

Our mission is to provide sound, unbiased advice and infOrmacion for your financial management needs. Extensive expenise in both warer and financial issues combines w bring uncommon business prncricaliry to every water agency client. From single engagements with smaller agencies to multiple engagemenrs with large, diverse agencies, our approach has stood the rest of rime, signified by the longevity of our client relationships, sometimes spanning over [WO decades. The results lead to solutions designed to:

6 save you dme and money ~ improve your financial position .. increase your financial Aexibiliry and ~ posirion you for the furure.

I ~9flll 1\..!JcArrliUr Oh·J., Suite: t I on ,. Irvin!!, CA 92Gl2 • phon!!: 'J49.li60.730[} .. f.'l.'C 9<\9.474.8773 • www.liddman.com

Agenda Item XI. B.1 .

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DISCUSSION

CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY

MEMORANDUM

CCWA Operating Committee

Ray A. Stokes ~}D<\.( Executive Direc1'"~ 1·

Age1111dla Btem >m.A.2.

July 2, 2018

State Water Project Contract Amendments for Water Management and California WaterFix Update

DWR and the State Water Project (SWP) Contractors have been in weekly negotiations to amend the SWP Contract for Cal WaterFix cost allocations and water management provisions over the past few months and have now completed negotiations on the contract amendment.

Attached is a copy of the draft "Agreements in Principle" which describes the proposed amendment.

I will provide an oveliliew of the Agreements in Principle at the Operating Committee meeting.

RAS

Attachment

45124_1.docx RAS

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DiSCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115 ..

Draft Agreement in Principle for the SWP Wate; Supply Contract Amendment for

Water Management and California WaterFix

This straw proposal for a draft Agreement in Principle (AlP) is from the Consolidated Talking Points as of May 30, 2018 from the contract amendment negotiations. Many provisions are under discussion and the workgroup will update the Draft AlP after future public negotiations. [Format used in this document is preliminary and is subject to revision.]

DRAFT Proposed Project Objectives

I.

The California Department of Water Re1;qur~es and the have agreed to the following proposed project objectives for amending the:~'fVP water supply · contract: , . ,, . ,

,.-.>., ;·:::<-:· . - ''·'· __ -.,- __ --~;,~;,~-~:c:t- --~-·>:·

1) Supplement and clarify tepJJS of the SWP•.(i{;;~t~_(~Hpply contract th!;Jt will provide greater water managemeAt(egwding transfet5•;and exchanges of SWP water

~-- :·- . . ,\,,:-~-.. :.•'j.C,

within the SWP service area;·,.···· ; . ··,;;,,, , ....

2) Provide a fair and equitable apPioach fa~ cost allo~~tibQ of California WaterFix facilities to maintain the SWP fin.ailcial integi/ty_, '·

PRINCIPLES TO ACHn:'\l~,iJRAFT PROPOSED OBJECTIVE FOR WATER MANAGEMENT TOOtS AND ACTIONS

1. Water Transfers ..

1.1. Terms of a Transfer Agreement: The PWAs shall determine duration and compe_nsation for aU-transfers; this includes allowing single, Transfer Packages and multi-year transfers to be as long as the remainder of the term of the contract. ·

1.2. Transfer Package Definition: A Transfer Package is comprised of two or more transfer agreements between the same PWAs. If a transfer package is presented to DWR for approval, DWR shall consider each proposed transfer within the package at the same time and shall apply the transfer criteria listed below in the review of each transfer. DWR shall not reclassify a Transfer Package or Transfer as an exchange.

Page 1 of 11

. \

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBliC DISCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

1.3. All contract language in Article 56( d) and language related to the Turnback Pool shall be removed.

(' 2. Water Exchanges.

2.1 Article 56(f) will be revised to include language penmitting consiperation of hydrology under a bona fide exchange and will include the following criteria for return ratios:

2.2.

2.3.

/:s.

3.1.

3.2.

For SWP allocations >= 50%, return ratio is [.JpJd~: 1 For SWP allocations > 25 and <50%, returp;ta;iio is up to 3: 1 For SWP allocations >15% and <=25%, r!3ti.Jrrl~atio is up to 4: 1 For SWP allocations <=15%, return ratio is up to'$:.1

The PWAs shall use the applicable return ratio usi~~tfle SWP allocation at the time the exchange transaction is executed between th.e PWAs.

Notice to Contractors 17-11 Attach mentA, 9~8\ion A, Bona ~ide Exchanges, Item 4 Cost compensation.re<:JdS as follows:.Maximum cost compensation for a bona fide exchange mqy n'olexceed the e~c:;h,anging PWAs combined conservation facilities, transportation facilities;t\ill;Jd CWF facilities' fixed charges (capital. and minimurn chargesincludin.g'q!Jpital surcharges). The allocationperceritage in the denominator6fthe cohlpensation calculation will be set by the SWP allocation which has inc6,.Pl5,r;ated the May 1 monthly Bulletin 12Q runoff forecasts. If exchanges are requested prior to the allocation identified above, DWR will provide timely approval with the obligation of the PWAs to meet the requirement of the maximum compensation- if the compensation exceeds the maximum, the PWAs will re-visit the agreementand adjust the compensation. If a cost adjustment is made, the PWA must notify DWR.

Transfers and Exchanges, including Transfers and Exchanges using Carryover Water in San Luis Reservoir (SLR).

Buyers and Sellers in Same Year. PWAs may be both buyers and sellers in the same year and enter into multiple transfers and/or exchanges in the same year.

Basic Criteria Required for Proposed Transfers and Exchanges.

3.2.1 Transfers and exchanges must be transparent.

3.2.2 Transfers and exchanges must not harm non-participating PWAs.

Page 2 of 11

DRAFTWClRKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBliC DISCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

3.2.3 Transfers and exchanges must not create significant adverse · .. impacts in a PWA service area.

3.2.4 Transfers and exchanges shall comply with all applicable laws and · · regulations.

3.2.5 Transfers and exchanges shall be scheduled only if they do not impact normal SWP operations.

3.2.6 Transfers and exchanges shall notil"n~~ct the financial integrity of the SWP. ,.

3.2.7 A PWA may petition the Director for an exception in the following cases. In each case, tgl:l;PWA must provide explanatory information to the DireGtcir.

\k. . ·-,_·, • A transfer or exchaqge does11ot meet ther basic criteria, but

the Plf:JA feels that there is'· compelling need !a-proceed with the trail_sfer qr exchange;

• A PWAthatha1;;received WElter in a transfer or exchange cannot deliyer all·bf:t~e waterf(pm the transaction in the same calendar year;<'ahd wishesJo carry over the water in its name .

•·: - . .

. l"he Director shall have"discretion toapprove exceptions.

3.3. Dispute Resolution Process, Prior to Executing an Agreement. PWAs and DWR shall complywith the following process to resolve disputes if a PWA that is not participating in the transfer or exchange claims that the proposed transfer and/or exchange has a significant adverse impact.

3.3.1 Any claim to a significant adverse impact may only be made after the submittal of a term sheet to DWR and before DWR approves a transfer/exchange agreement.

3.3.2 In the event that any dispute can't be resolved among the PWAs, DWR will convene a group including DWR (the Chiefs of SWPAO, Legal, and Operations or their designees) and the PWA parties involved (PWA representatives to be chosen by each PWA party). Any PWA claiming an adverse impact must submit written documentation to support this claim and identify a proposed solution. This documentation must be provided 2 weeks in

Page 3 of 11

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBUC DiSCUSSION· Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc#00115

advance of a meeting of the group that includes SWPAO, Legal, Operations and the involved PWA representatives.

3.3.3 If this group can't resolve the dispute, the issue will be taken to the Director of DWR.

3.3.4 The Director's decision will be the final.

3.4. Water Delivery Priorities: Exchange and tra[lsfer water shall be scheduled in accordance with Article 12 (f) priorities ret9ining the associated priority level. The transfer water will not have the [l[C>tection of Article 14(b) and the delivery cannot impact any other PWAs. · ·

3.5 Although DWR will not be a party to ~ny transfer oF exchange agreement between the PWA's, DWR and thE, PiN As shall enter into an agreement to address DWR's role in effectuatirig:\he transfer or exchange. Such agreement shall include certain stail~ardized.pr,ovisions designed to protect SWP operations, finances and liability,.'along.wilh other provisions tailored to the particular transactioh.6~1l~ otherwise agreed among DWR and thePWAs.

3.6 Timely Processing. DWRwill tiinelyprocess requests to be incorporated . into the schedul.e to deliver wp~er tha(given year..

3. 7 Shortages: In regards to shortages, biNR retains authority as set forth in Article 1 8(a).

3.8 Article 21.

3.8. 1 Tulare Lake Basin Wate(Storage District, Empire Westside Irrigation District, Oak Flat Water District, and Kings County may transfer a portion of their Article 21 water to another PW A.

3.8.2 The Director, in his or her discretion, may approve the transfer of a portion of other PWA's allocation of Article 21 water to another PV\IA.where there is a special need for the transfer. The Department will prepare criteria to be applied for the review of a PWArequest to transfer Article 21 water. This will not impact the Department's process for allocating Article 21 water.

4. PWA Due Diligence.

4.1 Each PWA participating in an exchange or transfer shall confirm the following in a resolution or other appropriate document approving the transfer or

Page 4 of 11

DRAFT WORKI~G DOCUIVIEN'r FOR PUBIJG DiSCLJSSION. Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

··exchange, including the use of storedwater/carryover water, if applicable, provided to DWR as follows:

4.1.1

4.1.2.

4.1.3.

4.1.4.

' 4.1.5.

That the PWA has complied with all applicable' laws for this transfer/exchange and shall specify the notices that were provided to the public agencies and the public regarding the proposed transfer or exchange.

That the relevant terms of the transfetfexchange have been provided to all State Water Projec;t pWAs and the SWC Water Transfer Committee; ~< ·

That the PWA is informed, and believes that this transfer/exchange will not harm other swp pWAs, or impaC\,9)/VP operations.

That the PWA is infor'i'll~9 .~nd believes that thi.,tr<msfer/exchange will not affect its ability to'fD.?,~e all p~yments, incliJcjing payments for its share qf the financing;q~pW:i\fDWR's Centra(\! alley Project Revenue Ba~·ds~''Nben due, u'rfi:l${lts water supply contract.

That the PWA has~J~·sldered t~e ;g6tential impacts of the trar:isfer/exchang'ei}vithin'fh~)?WA's i~~i_ce area.

4.2. Add language to the contract that reiqOires PWAs parties to an exchange or transfer to publicly post and provide information to non-party PWAs. The PWAs and DWRagree that DWR will send a Notice to Contractors to outline the following process related .to transparency for transfers and exchanges:

At the time the PWA parties submit the Contract Information Form to DWR, they will provide the Contract Information Form to the non-party PWAs. During the time period beginning with the PWA parties submitting the Contract Information Form to DWR and the time before there is a final agreemimtwith DWR for storage or conveyance, the PWA parties will publicly post informatio~fegarding the transfer or exchange. If applicable, the PWA parties will request the State Water Contractor Board to support the water transfer. If the State Water Contractor board votes to support the transfer or exchange, the General Manager will send a letter of support to DWR and to the non-party PWAs. Once a storage or conveyance agreement is completed it will be provided to the non-party PWAs.

4.3. If requested by the DWR Director with respect to any confirmation of Basic Criteria for Transfers, Exchanges and Carryover Water, the PWA shall

Page 5 of 11

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Draft 3 -June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

cooperate with DWR in providing DWR with information supporting the basis for the confirmation or basic criteria.

5. Stored Water/Carryover Water.

5.1. Store and Transfer SWP Water in the Same Year. Modify Article 56(c)(4) and any other applicable sections to allow PWAs to store and transfer Table A water in the same year and modify Article 56(c) and any other applicable sections to allow a PWA to transfer Table A water to another PWA's service area. DWR will continue to coordinate througl{th'e PWAs under the existing SWP contracts. .·,.'

5.2 Carryover Water Program: CarryovervVater~rbgram shall require transfers and/or exchanges of carryover wa!~r in years of need; as confirmed by the receiving PWA, to meet the followif)g criteria: · ·

5.2.1 Carryover water available for tr~risf~r or exchange in this amendment is defined only as stored water dfisBdbed in Article 56(c)(1) and 56(c)(2) and not 12(e). ··

5.2.2 Carryover water may only be exchanged or used in single-year transfers. ·

5.2.3 ThePWA purchasing the ca~ryover water must take delivery, in its service areas, unless an exemption is granted under 5.2.8.

5.2.4 . A PWA may .transferor exchange up to 50% of its carryover water.

5.2,5 A PWA may transfer/exchange greater than 50% of its carryover water, if the PWA demonstrate that the transfer or exchange of carryover water will not prevent it from meeting critical water needs in the current year or the following year and obtain approval by DWR Director.

5.2.6 All transfer and exchange of carryover water are subject to section 4.2.

5.2.7 The PWA receiving the water must confirm that the PWA has a need for that water for use within its service area during the current year unless an exception is granted under 5.2.8.

5.2.8 A PWA may request an exception for the following, but not limited to, from the DWR Director:

Page 6 of 11

.. DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115.

5.2.8.1 For any exceptions to the criteria listed above;

5.2.8.2 Requests for the transfer and exchange of stored (or carryover) water prior to this water being displaced; and

5.2.8.3 Using San Luis Reservoir as the transfer/exchange point.

II.· PRINCIPLES TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVE FOR CWF COST ALLOCATION ·f·i·~·:/{·;

1. These costs would be billed to and collected fro))J':SWP PWAs participating in the SWP portion of CWF (Participating PWAs), except those SWP PWAs situated north of the Delta (Non-Participating PWAs);throught~eir annual Statement of Charges (SOC}. ·

2. CWF Facilities Definition: CWF F~cilities shall mean thos~Jacilities that are constructed to convey water from thEtil'orth DeltC! .. lCJ the soutllJ;>elta through facilities as described in the California Water Fix·Fihal EIRIEIS SCH #2008032062. In generai,:GVVf Facilities 'w(ii;ciiv~rt water from th~'Sacramento River through three intakes~9:n:the E3ast bank S(the Sacramento River, through pipelines and tunnels to the sc)uthDelta, to newfg.f~;Jbay located northwest of the existing Clifton Court Forebay;~~nd firlally(o connectjgns with the California Aqueduct north'bf·the Jones and•Banks pu[nping plants.

·- ,- .,.. . - - .

3: CWF Facilitie~ ,Charge Components: The purpos~ of the CWF Facilities is water conservation and/or transportation. Accordingly, all capital and minimum operations, mainte11ance, power and replacement (OMP&R) costs associated with the CWF Facilities are 100% reimbursable and shall be recovered by the DWR from Participating PWAs throligh their annual SOCs. These costs shall be allocated to and billed under two new charges as follows:

(1) CWF FacilitiesCapitaiCharge Component .· . - ..

(2) CWFFacilities f\.11ihimum OMP&R Component . -· .. ,,:.

4. CWF Facilities Capitilf Charge Component Method of Computation

4.1 This computation will recover actual annual debt service created by financing activities (Financing Method) for CWF Facilities.

4.2 Each Financing Method shall provide an annual repayment schedule, which includes all Financing Costs.

4.3 Financing Costs shall mean the following: 4.3.1 Principal of and interest on Revenue Bonds,

Page 7 of 11

4.4

DRAIFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

4.3.2 Debt service coverage required by the applicable bond resolution or indenture in relation to such principal and interest,

4.3.3 Deposits to reserves required by the bond resolution or indenture in relation to such Revenue Bonds, and

4.3.4 Premiums for insurance or other security obtained in relation to such Revenue Bonds.

Financing Method shall be divided into four:da{~';ories: ~ ·' . ':- - ....

4.4.1 CWF Facilities Capital Costspai~'vVith th~proceeds of Water System Facility Revenue Bonds, · · ··· ·

4.4.2 CWF Facilities Capital Costs paid with amounts intbe State Water Resources Development Syste111 Reinyestment Account,

4.4.3

' - . . ,• - .

CWF Facilities Capital Costs paid ~h;h~ally for assets that will have a short Economic Useful Life or the c6sts of which are not substantial, and

4.4.4 CWFFacilities Capital Costs prepaid by the Participating PWAs.

4.5 CWF Facilitie.s Capital Charge COmponent should be allocated to the Participating PWAs in proportion to the CWF Facilities Allocation Factors for each calendaryear.

5. CWF Facilities Minimum OMP&R Charge Component Method of Computation ·

5.1 Recovery will be estimated and/or actual annual OMP&R costs determined for the CWF Facilities each year.

5.2 CWF Facilitie.s Minimum OMP&R Charge Component shall be allocated to the ParticipatingPWAs in proportion to the CWF Facilities Allocation Factors for each calendar year.

6. CWF Facilities Energy Charges -The CWF energy costs are 100% reimbursable by the PWAs and the methodology will be determined by the interim SWRDS Finance Committee.

7. CWF Facilities Allocation Factors- The following table is a preliminary allocation of CWF Facilities participation percentages for the Non-Participating

Page 8 of 11

.. DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Draft 3- June 27,2018 Doc#00115

PWAs and the Participating PWAs. Only Participating PWAswould be billed for CWF Facilities Charge Components through their annual SOC, using the CWF Facility Allocation Factors described in the table. Non-Participating PWAs would not be billed for repayment of costs for construction, operation and maintenance of facilities associated with CWF, except to the extent there is a pennanent transfer of Table A from a Participating PWA to a Non-Participating PWA as set forth in principle 11.

Non-Participating PWA .('<:· CWF Facilities - Allocation Factors City of Yuba City ··'•·'·•· '.:· .. -, exempt County of Butte i .... :. exempt Plumas County FC&WCD C': .. : .'.· exempt Napa County FC&WCD .... ' exempt Solano County_Water Agency I -•,_ exempt Participating PWA <•, GY':fF Facilities

.• Allocation Factors Alameda County FC&WCD, Zone 7 '' .·.···' ._ .. · 1.9875% Alameda County Water District > -.'.;.:''•

1.0355% ·:. .

Santa Clara Valley Water District .. ,. ·. 2.4654% Dudley Ridqe Water District ·''.· ·'·"

.. :. 1.0194%

Empire-West Side Irrigation District. : ':'• ' . . . .. ·.:···· .. 0.0740% Kern County Water Agerrcy-Total ·.: .. 24.2278% County of Kinqs · ' :, : · .. 0.2294% Oak Flat Water District . 0.1405% Tulare Lake Basin Water Stcitaqe District· 2.1565% San Luis Obispo Couhty'FC&WCD · .. ·.·

0.6163% Santa' Barbara County FC&WCD 1.1214% Antelope Valley-Ei:u3fKern Water Agency 3.5709% Santa Clarita Valley Water Aqency 2.3470% coachellaValley Water.DJstrict 3.4108% Crestline-Lake Arrowhe<!dWater Agency 0.1430% Desert Water Agency 1.3744% Littlerock Creek lrriqatipb'District 0.0567% Mojave Water Agellcy; · 2.2139% Palmdale Water DistiiC:t 0.5251% San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 2.5295% San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District 0.7100% San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 0.4265% The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 47.1253% Ventura County Watershed Protection District 0.4931% Total 100.000%

Page 9 of 11

DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT F.OR PUIBUC DISCUSSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

8. Repayment Schedule Table- The amount to be paid by the Participating PWAs for each year under the CWF Facilities Capital and Minimum OMP&R charge Components shall be set forth in a Repayment Schedule Table.

9. Charge Redetermination- The CWF Facilities Capital and Minimum OMP&R Charge Components shall be subject to Charge Redetermination.

10.Annual Statement of Charges- The CWF Facilities Capital and Minimum OMP&R Charge Components shall be included in;3-~eparate invoice that is included in the annual SOC and shall be subject lathe time and method of payment for Capitol and Minimum OMP&R Cpniponents.

11. Permanent Transfer of Contract Righ~s- Any permar1ent transfer of Table A contract rights of a Participating PWA si"Jall be accompanied by a pro-rata transfer of that PWAs rights and responsibilities with respeplto CWF.

12. CWF Facilities Use Of Facilities Charge -If aNon-Participating PWA transfers allocated Table A to a Participating PWA then nb fee will be charged to the PWAs involved in the trans_a.ction. Other transactions may result iri a fee sufficient to cover all (1) capital, (2) minimum Operations, maintenance, power and replacement (OMP&R) costs, and.(3) variableOMP&R costs, associated with this usage. ·

13. Water Delivery Principles- Participating PWAs moving water in excess of their CWF Facilities Allocation Factor shallschedule deliveries in a manner that does not harm other participating PWAs and shall be subject to the delivery priorities set forth in Article 12(f) ofthe Contract.

14. P-~111/er Cost Incurred DL!ring Construction: Per the DWR capitalization policy, any power costs (for example, power supply, grid connections, transmission) incurred to constructthe CWF facilities shall be capitalized during Construction Work in Progress, as used in DWR's financial statements, and costs are 100% reimbursable recovered·through the CWF Facilities Capital Charge Component.

iii. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

1. DWR and the PWAs agree that this AlP is intended to be used during the environmental review process for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to define the proposed project description for the purposes of CEQA, and to permit the next steps of the SWP water supply contract amendment process, including scoping and the preparation of the EIR. The AlP principles are not final contract language and do not represent a contractual commitment by either DWR or the PWAs to approve any proposed project or to sign contract

Page 10 of 11

. DRAFT WORKING DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCU.SSION Draft 3- June 27, 2018

Doc# 00115

amendments. By concurring with the AlP, DWR and the PWAs express their.·, . intent to move forward with the CEQA process with DWR as lead agency and the PWAs as responsible agencies, and ultimately develop a proposed project consisting of contractual amendments consistent with the AlP principles and prepare the EIR for consideration by DWR and the PWAs.

2. At the end of the CEQA process and in compliance with CEQA, DWR and the PWAs will each individually evaluate the EIR and contract amendments, exercise their independent judgment, and determine wheth,er,or not to certify the EIR, approve the proposed project and sign the cont~~'Sgamendments or to approve an alternative project. Consequently, even thp@,h'PWR and the PWAs have agreed to the AlP for the purposes describ(3'i:J;"irithe·preceding paragraphs, DWR and each PWA retain their full discretion u11der CEQAto consider and adopt mitigation measures and alternatives, inCluding the alternative of not going forward with the proposed project. · ·· · · '',

Page 11 of 11

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DISCUSSION

CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORiTY

MEMORANDUM

CCWA Operating Committee

Ray A. Stokes ~}.\Y\( Executive Direcff'f'\ 1

State Water Project Contract Extension Update

Agel!'lc:lia item >m.A.3

July 2, 2018

Water Code section 147.5 requires that DWR provide an informational hearing to the California Legislature for the renewal or extension of a long-term water supply contract

; between the Department and the State Water Project Contractors. DWR has scheduled the ( first of those hearings on July 3, 2018 in front of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. It is

anticipated that a hearing in front of the entire Legislature will occur sometime in late-summer or early fall.

The following letter from DWR Director, Karla Nemeth, summarizes the hearing process and includes an executive summary on the proposed extension and financial amendments.

RAS

Attachments

45125_1.docx RAS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- CALIFORNIA NATURAl RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINfH STREET, P.O. BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-DOOI I916J653-5791

MAY 1 0 2018

Honorable Holly J. Mitchell, Chair Joint Legislative Budget Committee State Capitol, Room 5019 Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Senator Mitchell:

,EDMUND G. DROWN JR., Governor

The attached packet of information is required for submittal to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee pursuant to Water Code Section 147.5, and relates to the extension of the long-term water supply contracts between the California Department of Water Resources and 29 public water agencies that receive water supplies frorn the California State Water Project" (SWP).

As you are aware, more than 26 million Californians and approximately 750,000 acres of farmland receive water through the facilities of the SWP. Since the early 1960s California has entered into contracts with 29 public water agencies that pay for the operation, maintenance, and construction of the SWP facilities that supply thern with water. Those original water contracts will begin to expire as early as 2035, shortening the period over which project costs can be financed through long terrn bonds- with the impact falling on local water ratepayers. ·

As a result, beginning in 2013 the Department of Water Resources began public negotiations concerning extension of these SWP long-term water contracts. This process involved 23 public negotiation sessions. The attached packet is the product of that effort- a contract amendment that would extend the water supply contracts until 2085. In addition to the extension of the long-terrn water supply contracts, this amendment modernized financial provisions of the contract to address existing conditions rather than those that needed to be addressed by the 1960s-era contracts.

Water Code 147.5, very simply, requires the Department to present the details of new or extended long-terrn water supply contracts to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at least 60 days prior to executing the contract. Specifically, the Water Code reads:

147.5. At least 60 days prior to the final approval of the renewal or extension of a long-terrn water supply contract between the department and a state water project contractor, the department shall present at an informational hearing before the Legislature the details of the temns and conditions of the contract and how they serve as a template for the remaining long-temn water supply contracts. This presentation shall be made to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and relevant policy and fiscal committees of both houses, as determined by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The department shall submit a copy of one long-terrn contract to the Joint Legislative Budget Cornrnittee no less than 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Honorable Holly J. Mitchell, .Chair

Page 2

The package accompanying this letter includes (I) an executive summary highlighting !he primary components of the Contract Extension Amendment, (2) the Agreement in Principle negotiated between DWR and the Contractors, dated June 18, 2014, (3) the proposed Contract Extension Amendment, (4) a model contract, showing how a consolidated original contract and amendments to date would appear if further amended by the Contract Extension Amendment, and (5) the text of Water Code Section 147.5.

The Department of Water Resources also stands ready to provide you and your staff with additional information as you may require and I look forward to the opportunity to share this important contract extension with the California Legislature. The certainty it will provide Californians regarding the continuing supply of clean, affordable water is of interest and importance to us all. As such, I iook forward to working with you to ensure a timely review of the contract details. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 653-7007.

Karla Nemeth Director (916) 653-7007

A ttachment(s):

cc: (See Attached List)

flltroduction:

Department of Water Resources 3-9-18

State Water Project Water Supply Contract Extension

Executive Summary Legislative Informational Hearing

In the 1960's, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) entered into water supply contracts with public water agencies located in northern California, the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast and Southern California to provide water service to the State VVater Project (SWP) Water Contractors in exchange for payments that recover the water supply cost of providing the service. Contract extension involves extending the 29 water supply contracts, which all have the same general provisions, have initial temns of 75 years and have expiration dates that currently range from 2035 to 2042.

Need for Contract Extension:

A significant part of the original capital costs to build the SWP was financed through State General Obligation Bonds ($1.75 billion), but following this initial period, SWP capital costs have been financed primarily through the issuance of SWP revenue bonds. Today, with

~I only 17 years left until the first contracts expire in 2035, DWR is limited to selling bonds with maturity dates that extend only 17 years rather than the customary practice of selling at least 30-year bonds. This shorter repayment period increases annual repayment costs to the contractors with the potential for significant financial impacts, which impacts will increase as the time passes without a contract extension.

v Some SWP facilities are over 50 years old, and there are many needed capital upgrades and repairs. Some anticipated capital projects include reinforcing Perris Dam and Sisk Dam against seismic failure, reconstructing the Thermalito Powerplant in the aftermath of a damaging fire, reconstructing the spillways at Oroville Dam, implementing the Oroville Hydroelectric License Project, obtaining a new license for the SWP's southern hydroelectric plants and completing other repairs to, among other things, the aqueduct, pumping plants and hydroelectric pump-generating equipment. All of these projects could benefit from funding from 30 year or longer bonds.

The Agreement in Principle (AlP):

To begin the contract extension process, DWR and the 29 water contractors held 23 public negotiation sessions over a one year period (May 2013- June 2014) and arrived at an


agreement in principle for the contract extension. Among other things, the AlP provided for the extension of the expiration dates for all contracts to December 31, 2085 and for other changes to the financial provisions in the contracts. The goal of the AlP was to place the SWP and contractors on a sounder financial footing going forward. In this regard, the AlP provided for, among other things, increasing the financial operating reserves of the SWP and moving to a more comprehensive pay-as-you-go billing methodology to provide a better match between revenues and costs incurred. (Twenty-five contractors have signed the AlP).

Contract Extension Amendment

A model of the contract extension amendment based on the principles in the AlP has now been completed. The primary components of the model amendment are described below.

A Term

The current Water Supply Contracts each have an initial temn of 75 years, but since they were signed at various times, they also have varying initial expiration dates that

V/ range from 2035 to 2042. This amendment would set the next expiration date for each extended contract to D,_;cember 3.1,2085.

? B. Major Billing Change

In the early years of the Contracts (in the 1960's), the Contractors were billed for costs while the initial facilities were being built and before water was able to be delivered. To address this situation, the original contract billing provisions have provided for amortizing capital costs (other than certain costs financed by revenue bonds) and conservation facility operations costs over a relatively long repayment period ending in the 2035, and all such amortized costs are repaid with interest at the project interest rate, a defined term in the contracts.

The Extension Amendment establishes a date (referred to as the Billing Transition Date (BTD)) and provides for the original contract billing methodology (which includes amortization of costs and the Water System Revenue Bond Surcharge) to continue to apply to all costs incurred prior to the BTD and for a new pay-as-you-go billing methodology to apply to all costs incurred on and after the STD. The actual BTD will depend on when the contract amendment is able to take effect. This effective date will in turn depend on whether a specified number of Contractors sign the amendment and whether there is any litigation challenging the amendment.

Moving to a pay-as-you-go billing system will result in a better real time match of revenues and expenditures and will ultimately make administration of the billing process less complicated. The Extension Amendment contains a number of items addressing the manner in which the new pay-as-you-go methodology will be implemented and administered.

Dep~rtment of Water Resources 3-9-18

C. Reserves - General Operating Account

A 1995 Amendment to the Water Supply Contracts, referred to as the Monterey Amendment established the General Operating Account and set a cap that is currently approximately $32 million. The Extension Amendment would increase the cap to at least $150 million with a provision to provide for cap adjustments in the future based on a business case analysis presented to the Director. The purpose of the GOA is to provide a fund to be used for (1) cash flow deficiencies relating to water supply activities for which DWR can charge the Contractors and (2) a State Water Resources Development System (SWRDS) emergency for any SWRDS purpose (whether or not the activity is chargeable to the Contractors.

D. SWRDS Reinvestment Account {SRA)

The Extension Amendment creates a new account, the SWRDS Reinvestment Account (SRA), to provide funds to finance all or a portion of the capital costs of individual SWP projects that are chargeable to the Contractors and for .which neither general obligation bonds nor revenue bonds are issued. This funding could be used for any SWP capital projects, similar to categories of capital projects that would be financed with revenue bonds, to the extent of funds in the account. After initial funding with available SWP funds, the primary source of replenishment of the account would be from reimbursements with interest. The reimbursement will then be available to provide a source of funds for the SWRDS Support Account (discussed below), for the SRA for additional investment purposes, and for additional deposits to the General Operating Account.

E. SWRDS Support Account (SSA)

The Extension Amendment creates the SWRDS Support Account, the primary purpose of which is to provide a source of funds to pay for non-chargeable expenditures where there are no funds or revenue sources available to pay for such costs. (An example would include funding of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program).

F. Facilities to Be Funded by Water System Facility Revenue Bonds

The Extension Amendment would allow DWR to issue SWP water system facility revenue bonds and to charge the contractors for the associated financing costs to: (1) finance repairs, additions, and bettemnents to most facilities of the SWP without regard to whether the facilities were in existence prior to January 1, 1987, which is the current Contract requirement and (2) finance other capital projects (not already listed in the contract for which water system facility revenue bonds could be sold) when mutually agreed to by DWR and at least 80 percent of the affected Contractors, provided tlhe approving affected Contractors' Table A amounts also exceed 80 percent of all affected Contractors Table A amounts.


G. Flow of Funds

The Extension Amendment adjusts the rate restructuring provision in Article 51, which provides for the reduction of rates on an annual basis after revenues are determined to be available to meet then-current SWP needs and requirements. The projected annual rate reductions of $40.5 million under the existing contract will be increased to a maximum of $48 million, but only if available revenues permit such reductions. The Contractors would agree to forgo any additional rate management reductions, including additional rate reductions to make up for past deficiencies. The Article 5.1 rate restructuring provision will expire as of December 31, 2035.

H. Davis-Do/wig Act

The Extension Amendment recognizes DWR's contract administration regarding the development of public recreation as including both capital and O&M costs in accordance with the Davis-Do/wig Act (Water Code Section 11910 et seq.) requirement that the costs of the development of public recreation QQi@ included in the prices, rates, and charges for water and power. In addition, certain language from the Davis-Do/wig Act would be set out in the Contracts.

I. Enhanced Coordination Regarding SWP Finances

The Extension Amendment provides for the establishment of a SWRDS Finance Committee comprised of DWR and Contractor representatives to provide recommendations to the Director concerning financial policies of the SWP and certain other specified matters. The Extension Amendment also provide for DWR's preparation of specific reports regarding SWP finances and provision of those reports to the SWRDS Finance Committee. In addition, during the public negotiations, a charter for the SWRDS Finance Committee was developed.

Environmental Review

DWR has prepared a Draft EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act to address possible environmental impacts associated with the proposed contract amendments. The Draft EIR, which was released on August 17, 2016, determined that the Extension Amendment would not result in any physical environmental impacts since the Extension Amendment addresses only the financial provisions of the contract The Extension Amendment does not address any changes to the water management provisions of the contract or the water allocations among the contractors. The final EIR will be completed after the Legislative hearing required by Water Code Section 147.5 takes place and will serve as the basis for DWR and the individual contractors to determine whether to approve the Extension Amendment


Legislative Informational Hearing

Water Code Section 147.5 requires DWR to make a presentation to the Legislature at an informational hearing at least 60 days prior to final approval of a Water Supply Contract Extension Section 147.5 also requires DWR to present the details of the terms and conditions of the contract and how they serve as a template for theTemaining long-term 11'/ater supply contracts and submit a copy of one long-tenm contract to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee no less than 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing.

To: Board of Trustees

From: Chris Dahlstrom, General Manager

Date: August 21, 2018

Subject: Cachuma Project

Agenda Item: XI.B.1, 2 &3.

Staff Report

UPDATE IN BOLD

There are several activities occurring that relate to the Cachuma Project in which the District is either directly involved, participating in, or indirectly affected. At a minimum, each item requires management level participation, sometimes legal counsel input, and at times Board member contributions. A list of the items below describes the District's interaction and level of effort.

1. Master Contract -/75r-1802R

There are several on-going activities related to the Master Contract. A) Unaccounted For water deliveries to the south coast. ID No.1 management,

Curtis Lawler from Stetson, and consultant Bill Luce (retired USBR Area Manager) met on October 12, 2017 with USBR staff at the South Central California Area Office in Fresno with Santa Barbara County Water Agency management on the phone to discuss the reconciliation of the accounting inequities caused by USBR decisions during the drought period. ID No.1 presented its request again to USBR with backup materials and tables that indicate the shortages and impacts caused by the credit or water made up by the Project to offset conveyance losses or "unaccounted for" water in deliveries to the South Coast Member Units through the south coast conduit. Previously, ID No.1 sent letters to USBR and SBCWA in April19, 2016 and May 30, 2017 indicating these inequities and request for reconciliation. As shown on Table 5, the amount of water needed to make ID No.1 whole under the Water Service Contract is 988 acre feet. USBR management indicated that they would respond to ID No.1's request once they review the materials and calculations provided at the meeting.

1

In an email from USBR on November 3, 2017, it was determined that after consideration of the comments, and in particular: a) the comment from ID No. 1 that: " ... 10 No. 1 is only looking for equitable treatment and parity among those who contract and pay for Cachuma Project Water .. .'~ and, b) the comment from Carpinteria Valley Water District that:" ... Carpinteria agrees that an accounting approach that excludes ID 1 s pro rata share of project unallocated water from the conveyance tosses in order to keep ID1's project rights whole is a reasonable approach." USBR will implement the September 18, 2017 proposal shown below.

Lake Storage >= 75,000 af AND Project Water >=65,000 af, then Use Historical Method of accounting whereby system/conveyance losses are absorbed by the Lake.

Lake Storage < 75,000 af OR Project Water< 65,000 af, then Assess the 4 Member Units that utilize the South Coast Conduit for All Water diverted including system/conveyance losses.

USBR also decided that unless there is new information not previously considered, the above modified approach is what USBR will ask COMB to incorporate into their accounting practices.

This determination continues to impact ID No.1 and is not equitable. Management will pursue ID No.1's 10.31 %share of any and all credits provided to the South Coast Member Units.

Management met with USBR Deputy Regional Director and other staff on November 30 to discuss a resolution to the water inequity and accounting. The Deputy Regional Director indicated he would look into this matter.

A meeting is scheduled between District Management and the Regional Director and Deputy Regional Director on January 1B'h at the Mid-Pacific Water Users Conference. The topics of discussion include the accounting and contract options.

On January 18, 2018 the meeting took place with USBR at the WUC. The 20 minute appointment was focused on contract options as described below with a brief reminder of the inequities of water supply and accounting issues. The accounting issues will be followed up with the USBR staff and management.

The "Unaccounted For" or "Apparent Water Loss" as indicated in the COMB water production report for March 2018, shows 117.9 AF for the month and an annual total of 466.1 AF. This represents an on-going conveyance loss of water in the south coast deliver system that needs to be made up or deducted from the south coast Member Units allocation for the year. According to the COMB report, it appears that only 3.5 AF of the 117.9 AF is being deducted. And, the YTD is only 103.2 is being

2

deducted from the south coast accounts as compared to the actual of 466.1 AF. Thus, the water in storage is mal<ing up the losses and the south coast is getting nearly its full delivery at the 10.31% expense of ID1. This total is additive to prior years and the subject of discussion with USBR.

The COMB production report indicates the "unaccounted for" or "Apparent Water Loss for April2018 at 14.9 AF or a total of 471.2 AF for the water year. This total is additive to prior years and the subject of discussion with USBR.

The May 2018 production report was not available at the date of this report.

According to the COMB Water Production Use Report the "unaccounted for" water to the south coast Cachuma Member Units was 560.2 AF. 101 is waiting for a response from letters sent to USBR and SB County Water Agency to reconcile the account and adjust the inequity.

B) New Water Year Allocation. On October 1, 2017, the new Cachuma Project water year commenced but USBR has not yet allocated the amount to be received in total and by each Member Unit. ID No.1 submitted its request for deliveries to Santa Barbara County Water Agency in August 2017 based on USBR two year allocation of 40% deliveries but subject to mid-year adjustments depending on the rainfall season results.

On November 1, 2017, USBR notified the County Water Agency that a 40% allocation is issued to the Cachuma Member Units beginning retroactively on October 1, 2017. A mid-year allocation adjustment is reserved based on the upcoming rainfall season and runoff conditions.

The District received the 1 ' 1 and 2nd period rates for the water year starting October 1 2017 from USBR through COMB. On December 7, 2017 COMB forwarded the rate sheet that includes the payment for a 40% allocation of water and a 30 -inch valve repair on the outlet works for a cost of $1.2 million. Management will request the financial back up for this repair and cost component.

USBR is reviewing WY 2014 - 2016 costs & rates for the Cachuma Project. Mr. Jackson and the Regional Accountants have been working with Janet Gingras to answer questions for providing further detail supporting Reclamation's cost and expenditures on the Cachuma Project for the 3 year time span 2014-2016. USBR has prepared information and are hoping to schedule a mutually convenient time in January (or early February) for a face to face meeting in the Santa Barbara area to review with the Member Units. In addition USBR is formulating a request to the Commissioner's Office that if approved would provide for extended repayment of two new Outlet Valves which USBR hopes to install later this year, over about a (+I-) 3 year period. USBR provided the authority to extend repayment comes from Public

3

Law 111-11.

No meeting or resolution regarding the rates and charges has occurred as of this date.

The latest issue is the Master Contract definition of "Project Water" and difference with the south coast Member Units and CCRB's interpretation of this contract term. CCRB is redefining the term to not include in this Contract definition of Project Water withheld from delivery and stored in Cachuma Reservoir in the following year (described as carryover water), but as water delivered to the Member Units and owned therefore not subject to evaporation or as part of other operational conditions of the Cachuma Project. This interpretation has implications to 10#1 's contracts related to the Cachuma Project and will require further evaluation and consultation with USSR. No concurrence has been reached with CCRB and the County as the "contractor" will need to be part of this discussion.

The County produces a water in storage illustration for Cachuma Reservoir based on actual records for water in the Jake. This calculation assumes no inflow. Based on this table as of March 1, 2018, the water available to the Member Units for supply (but is subject to USSR conditions for fish releases), is 23,302 AF including this years' allocation of 10,284 AF, Carryover of 6, 186, unallocated water in storage of 6,832 AF. Water accounted for evaporation is not considered available for delivery. Given that 25,714 AF is the annual operational yield, and the current forecasted amount is Jess, on October 1, 2018 it is likely that USSR will determine a reduction in deliveries for the upcoming water year.

With the limited runoff into the Jake in the 2017-18 rainfall season, the allocation remains at 40%.

ID No.1 is preparing its WY2018/19 Cachuma allocation based on the terms in Article 3 of the Master Contract and the balance of remaining "Project Water'' in storage. With 49% of normal precipitation at the lake, inflow from that rainfall resulted in an ending storage of nearly 99,000 AF. It is anticipated that next year's allocation request will be 40% to 43% of full entitlement of 2,651 AF.

The Cachuma Member Units submitted each respective request for WY2018-19 to Santa Barbara County Water Agency and USBR in accordance with Article 3 of the Master Contract. The request was for a 40% allocation reserving the right to request an increase should the lake level increase over 100,000 AF. The Water Agency responded to USBR requesting recommending a split allocation of 20% for the first period of time and reallocating the remaining 20% mid water year.

4

C) USBR Operations. USBR is now reading lake levels off a staff gauge in the lake as the primary transducer recorder (that measures lake level) has malfunctioned. In addition, a USBR survey crew came down from Friant Dam and re-surveyed the lake finding it was lower than what was actually recording. Instruments were adjusted and the current elevation reading is correct. An adjustment of approximately 2, 775 AF occurred reducing the amount in storage. According to USBR, all other readings (CCWA inflow, South Coast delivery, downstream releases, and evaporation) are accurate.

On October 19, 2017 the County prepared a report that certified that the lake elevations were previously accurate based on survey results. Reclamation sent surveyors from region the following week to verify elevation data and make adjustments accordingly in the October daily operations report.

USBR is operating under standard conditions with water to the Hilton Creek system now provided by gravity from the outlet works. A meeting with USBR, CCWA and the Member Units regarding the outlet works took place on November 27 with a draft report by HDR presenting CCWA infrastructure options.

With the WR89-18 Downstream Water Rights releases beginning on August 6, 2018, USBR initially allowed CCWA to bypass the penstock delivering SWP water into the Cachuma. In a following directive on August 8, 2018, USSR authorized CCWA redirect lake deliveries from the bypass pipeline located in the spillway of Bradbury Dam to the penstock to supplement the Water Rights Release currently underway in order to meet the water quality requirements in the Settlement Agreement. CCWA and USBR are implementing the operating protocol agreed to for the August 2017 Water Rights Release.

The Hilton Creek Emergency Backup System (EBS) is in standby position, while the Hilton Creek Water Supply Pumping Barge is in primary positon. In the event that the EBS is activated, the Bureau Dam Operators will need to inform CCWA immediately to redirect lake deliveries from the penstock to the bypass pipeline.

Currently, 180 cfs is flowing through the penstock into the Stilling Basin. The Santa Ynez Pumping Plant (SYPP) is currently operating at 16.2 cfs, and flow is lower than 100% production of 21 cfs due to high delivery rates at the 101 Mesa Verde Turnout.

The operating rules are (1) CCWA water is less than 50% of total flow and (2) the blended water is 18 Cor less. Currently, the temperature sensors shows Lake water at 14.1 C and CCWA water at 14.3. When entering the flows and likely temperatures, the proposed blending operation appears to comply with the operating rules.

5

D) Whittier Fire - Siltation Impacts to Lake Storage According to the USFS Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) report issued August 13, 2017, there is significant potential for siltation into Cachuma from the 18,296 acre fire. The yield of 25,714 af could be affected by the amount of siltation recorded this season. The December 2013 silt survey showed an appreciable reduction in the storage capacity resulting from the Zaca Fire.

A Storm coordination meeting was held to discuss actions, activities and preparedness methods to be used to contain siltation runoff and debris flows into Cachuma and the areas adjacent to the fire. All federal, state and local agencies attended to discuss the coordination and end results. According to the USFS and County, should there be above average or high rainfall intensity and duration, water quality TDS and introduction of carbon loading will occur. The south coast agencies are planning for no water diversions in this event. The County and COMB are coordinating a debris boom surrounding the Tecolote Intake Structure. All of tributary and drainage into the lake is up to the property owners. Caltrans will not clear or conduct preventative measures for culverts or under crossings on HWY154. USBR and USFS are funding dependent and have done only minimal means of protection to date.

A significant storm is expected to hit the region on January Blh and impact the SY Range which may see substantial orographic lift and rainfall in the Whittier burn area. The runoff may create significant siltation and water quality impacts that will affect the south coast water deliveries. The Thomas Fire area that burned around Jameson Lake and Gibraltar reservoir is also expected to receive rainfall amounts of up to 6 inches with intensities of .5 inches per hour. The impacts of siltation in those reservoirs have not yet been evaluated.

Minimal rainfall has occurred so far this season in the Santa Ynez watershed adjacent to Lake Cachuma and within the Whittier burn area. However, with the rainfall intensity on January gth on the south coast region and specifically Montecito area of the Thomas Fire and the subsequent flooding and debris flow disaster, this type of episode supported the position expressed by 10#1 at the OEM meeting in December to prepare for such a geomorphological rain- driven event impacting the Cachuma Watershed and Highway 154. To date, most of the focus has been on Montecito and rightly so, but with any substantial rainfall, runoff would likely impair or substantially impact the lake and a major highway. OEM has not convened a follow up meeting related to the Whittier Fire.

The rains in March produced tributary runoff from the burn area and caused termination of water deliveries from Cachuma to the south coast due to high turbidity and TOG's. The two treatment facilities on the south coast were not capable of treating those loads. No other damage or impacts from runoff occurred with the March rains.

6

E) Evaporation Accounting USSR has prepared a Hybrid for evaporation accounting for certain levels of storage. This is a departure from the Master Contract terms and definition. USSR may exercise its perceived discretion under the Master Contract 9(a) to operate in a manner that allows the maximum amount of "Available Supply" each water year. Comments were provided to USSR. There is no reference to change the evaporation triggers or the elevation for point of diversion to the south coast without full consent of the contracting parties.

Evaporation remains an issue for the South Coast for both SWP water imported into the Cachuma Project under the Warren Act, and Cachuma Water supplies. The south coast Member Units want no evaporative charges applied to their allocations or SWP water stored beyond the 30-day allowable period.

The inequity impact on ID1 remains unresolved with the County Water Agency and USSR. The account inequity continues to increase with the losses of water on the south coast conveyance system which in December was 150 AF for the month. Further action will be required to engage USSR.

In February 2018, the USSR Cachuma Daily Operations Report indicated evaporation of 417.8 AF while the COMB evaporation charge against the Member Unit water was only 52.0 AF. And, according to the COMB accounting, the YTD (Oct-Sept) evaporation was 331.6 AF charged against the MU accounts compared to the actual of 2,291.3 AF per USSR statistics that should be charged. This discrepancy again impacts the yield of the Project.

Evaporation accounting from the USSR Cachuma Daily Operations Report indicated 611.7 AF while COMB reports on 72.8 AF for the month of April 2018. This discrepancy again impacts the yield of the Project.

The June 2018 USSR Cachuma Daily Operations Report recorded 997.6 AF of evaporation at the lake while COMB statistics reflect 107.1 for the month, which is a significant discrepancy and apparently not being deducted from accounts buy COMB.

2. Cachuma Project 2020 New Water Service Contract The existing water service contract 175r-1802R or Master Contract is between USSR and Santa Barbara County Water Agency with concurrent Cachuma Member Unit Contracts for the purpose of serving and supplying water to the five contracting agencies. The Master Contract is a 25-year expiring in 2020 with a capital component that was paid off after 20 years or as of September 30, 2015. According to the terms of the Master Contract, contract negotiations would occur no less than two years prior to the expiration date. At a 2016 contract compliance inspection, USSR contract personnel indicated that the informal process for negotiating a new water service contract would begin in 2017.

7

Santa Barbara County Water Agency has initiated discussions with USSR starting on November 18, 2016 and has proposed to the Cachuma Member Units to start a process for developing a strategy for contract "renewal" as defined by the County. This strategy involves a Steering Committee made up of the County, the CMU's and the SYRWCD. Also involved, as observing agencies, are COMB, CCRB and CCWA. The purpose of this Steering Committee (see outline) is to provide guidance and recommendations to the Director of Public Works as the "Basis of Negotiations" draft language with USSR.

This activity is pre-mature since each of the CMU governing Boards and City Council have not yet approved this process nor determined the future of participation in the CMU Contracts or the Master Contract. The County has prepared a charter for signature by the ID No.1 General Manager and others. Prior to signing this charter or any action related to the 2020 Contract or the corresponding CMU Contract, ID No.1 Board discussion, direction and decision is needed.

The County Water continues its discussions with USSR contract division regarding the process and protocols for negotiations of a new water service contract in 2020. The Water Agency has been coordinating with the CMU's related to the negotiation process along with the terms and conditions of such water service contract. The Water Agency circulated a charter setting forth the purpose, goals, historical context, tasks, organization and process of a Steering Committee that will assist the Water Agency in developing a proposed new Contract to govern the Cachuma Project as a stable and sustainable water supply for all beneficiaries, including downstream water rights holders, and to address public trust requirements. A meeting is set for March 1, 2017 to discuss this process.

County Water Agency representatives met with USSR Commissioner and DOl officials on March 8-9 in Washington DC. The subject of the meetings included the 2020 Contract and other water related issues which will be reported on at the next Member Unit Managers meeting.

On April 5, 2017 the County Water Agency held a monthly meeting with staff members from the south coast Cachuma Member Units, Management from ID No.1 and the Parent District, and a representative from CCRB and COMB to review Project water accounting and to discuss County's Charter process and timetable (attached). The meeting was focused on the County's position as the "Contractor'', process with USSR, identifying certain steps in the "renewal" contract, the basis of negotiation, environmental review, the SWRCB and future 80 implications, and funding. Also, there was concern that each of the CMU governing bodies has not stated a contracting position or has there been concurrence from any CMU manager or those CMU Boards or City Council. At this point, only the ID No.1 Board has had on-going board items and developed a position to seek other contracting options with USSR.

8

Many other issues were brought up regarding the County as the Contractor and current concerns with other contracts and water-related matters that have an influence on the Cachurna contract process such as the CCWA Warren Act, and the Transfer of O&M contract. The County management will be taking this matter to the Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2017. No agreement was reached among the parties at the meeting and the subject was continued to May 3rd following the Board of Supervisors meeting.

The Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the Water Agency met on May 2, 2017 to approve staff's recommendation to send a Jetter to USBR initiating contract renewal with the County. The County also described process being between USBR and the County not including the Cachuma Member Units. The City of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria Valley WD and ID1 representatives provided comment regarding an open process inclusive of the Member Units no consent was provided by the Member Units to have the County as the contractor, explore the contracting option of the Member Units, transparency and direct communications with the stake-holders. The Board approved sending the letter and did not condition the process as requested by the stakeholder representatives.

101 management and legal counsel are meeting with USBR on May 11 to discuss contract options, and the County process.

At the ACWA conference on May 11, 2017, ID No.1 management along with the City of Santa Barbara Water Supply Manager met with USBR Regional Directors Pablo Arroyave and Federico Barajas, Michael Jackson SCCAO Manager, and other USBR staff to discuss the Master Contract, that expires on September 30, 2020, and the governmental interactions associated with negotiations of that contract. We discussed, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors initiating contract negotiations with Reclamation which raised several significant concerns by the Cachuma Project Member Units including the stakeholder process and fair representation of water supply interests.

We asked USBR to explore contracting options available to the CMU's and that the Master Contract should not simply be renewed with the County without all the possible options be considered including individual contracts with the CMU's similar to the San Luis Unit, a single contract with multiple parties, or other contract options with a stakeholder agency rather than a third party contract as has been initiated by the County. The other option to be evaluated was an Interim Contract due to the pending SWRCB and NMFS actions related to the continuing operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project and public trust resources. USBR committed to explore options for contracting going forward before proceeding with any negotiations.

As part of that 3D-minute meeting, we described that none of the CMU's Boards or City Council have considered nor concurred with the Santa Barbara County formally requesting that the Master Contract be renewed for 25 years and to initiate negotiations on behalf of the CMU's. In particular, in the manner being advanced by the County

9

which we explained that the County's assumptions are premature, and it is unacceptable that the CMU governing bodies have been excluded from the contracting process with Reclamation. We requested that the Reclamation's process be inclusive, transparent, and fully engage and involve the CMU's which they agreed to contact the County.

Finally, we indicated that the County's interests, as a non-water purveyor are not aligned with and in some cases divergent from the CMU's interests including the County's purpose in this renewal contract to "protect downstream interests and public trust'' but failing to mention any interest in protecting the water supplies of Cachuma Member Units. We explained that because of divergent viewpoints and the exclusion of the CMU's staff and elected officials in the process, support for a renewal or new contract will be difficult to achieve with the County. Reclamation suggested that a process can be structured in a way that allows for direct communication among key stakeholders.

On May 25, USBR responded to our request for the process to be inclusive of the CMUs but added conditions to this process being opened to the CMUs. USBR considered that given the unique connection that the Cachuma Master Contract has with the Member Units (e.g. Member Units are the recipients of the water and are responsible for the associated payments to Reclamation through sub-agreements with the County), Reclamation believes it is appropriate in this circumstance to afford the Member Units the opportunity to participate in the technical and negotiation sessions along the side of the County. However, the CMU's are to recognize that once negotiated, Reclamation expects to execute the contract with the County as was done for the current contract, and with certain limitations, such as those noted below:

1) These are Reclamation convened sessions and will be unburdened by roll-call, motions, and votes typical of state agencies that must follow Brown Act protocols.

2) Participants must be formally authorized by the respective board of the entity that the participant is representing.

3) No more than 2 participants per entity may sit at the negotiation table for the purpose of actively engaging in the negotiations. Others may observe, but must remain silent.

There are several concerns with the conditions as described by USBR that will need to be discussed by the CMU's.

The County, USBR and the CMU's will be involved in the second technical session scheduled for June 29, 2017 at the South Central California Area Office in Fresno. The County is preparing for a public information meeting on September 21 in the Santa Ynez Valley and September 22 on the south coast.

The Cachuma Member Unit managers and staff are meeting on a regular two week basis to specifically discuss contract strategy and process.

On June 29, a technical session was held involving USBR, SB County, and the

10

Cachuma Member Units. ID No.1 sent Mr. Bill Luce as its representative, (retired USBR SCCAO Manager) who is working with Friant Water Authority on contracts, and was the USBR authority in the 1995 Cachuma Contract renewal. The session was five hours and discussion items including the contract, environmental compliance, negotiation process, and contract terms as outlined below:

Negotiation Process: USBR reviewed the negotiation process and that the existing water service contract for the Cachuma Project was with S.B. County, and the USBR will give great deference to the County in any contract issue, as opposed to the Member Units. If the MU's want something in the contract different from what the County wants, the MU's would have to make a very convincing argument for the Bureau to override the County's position. The specific example was that if the County wanted to continue to have the contract, Reclamation will keep it that way. Mr. Fayram stated the County wishes to continue to hold the contract No contract options were discussed as was directed by the Regional Director in a meeting in May.

It was confirmed that during formal contract negotiations, each MU will have 2 seats at the table, but the County (as well as the Bureau) can have as many as they wish.

USBR management reviewed the process of the Bureau putting together their Basis of Negotiation, Standard Articles, and the process in general with respect to negotiation sessions that are publicly noticed meetings that are open to the public, etc.

The BON will take from 4 to 6 months to prepare, then the contract negotiations and NEPA compliance.

Communication Protocols: The Bureau will respond to communications the same way they are received. If the County sends the Bureau an email and copies the MU, the response from the Bureau will be to the County with copies to the MU.

Environmental Compliance: The Bureau will start their NEPA compliance with the Project Description (which will be negotiated with the County and MUs). The Project Description will lead the Bureau to determine if they start with an Environmental Assessment (with a FONSI as the end product) or just go straight to an EIS. USBR estimated the Project Description negotiation will take 7 months.

There was discussion about how the BO and the SWRCB order will enter into the environmental compliance process, with the general statement from USBR on the outcome being "we'll have to wait and see."

Project yield was brought up in this discussion (and several times later). Goleta said they want it in the contract, the County said they didn't Further discussion between the County and the MU was tabled until a meeting next Wednesday.

Contract Articles: USBR management walked through almost all of the articles of the existing contract. with the idea being to highlight those that were going to need to be renegotiated. Almost all of the non-Standard articles will need to be revisited including

11

-Recitals and Definitions- several will have to be revisited. Article 2- (Term of Contract - Right to Use of Water): USSR wasn't sure about the language and a longer contract term in 2(a). ID No.1 representative mentioned that perhaps the County and MU should consider pushing the envelope on the 25 year limit; this was a policy call in the 1990's, but this administration might be willing to consider a 40 year term. ID No.1 also cautioned that a longer term might impact the ESA and NEPA compliance complexity. USSR indicated that Article. 3 (Water to be Made Available ... ) needs a lot of work, as does Article 4 (Point of Diversion and Responsibility for Distribution of Water). When discussing 4(a), a mention was made about the impact this subarticle would have on ID #1. Also in discussing Article 4, an existing "Exchange Agreement" was discussed and all parties seemed to want to keep that agreement in place. There were also discussions about the accretions in the Tecolote Tunnel and ID #1.

USSR indicated that Article 7 (Recognition of Downstream Water Rights and Studies): needs a "re-Jook" and Article 13 (Water Acquired by the Cachuma Member Units Other than from the U.S.) will need a Jot of work.

Contracting Options: USSR just referred back to the earlier statement that the County's position will be given deference.

Other Items: Minutes of this meeting will be distributed by the Bureau. USSR wants the County and the MU to decide the focus of the next Technical Session and the next meeting will be on early to mid-August.

On August 10, 2017, the Water Agency is calling for a StElering Committee meeting to discuss several contract topics as shown in the hand out. It is likely that only a couple of those topics will be covered due to the extremely limited timing allowed in the meeting. This committee meeting is in advance of the technical meeting scheduled by USSR on August 18, 2017 in Santa Barbara. No agenda has been provided for that meeting.

USSR held a technical session for the 2020 water service contract on August 18, 2017. The participants included USSR management, environmental, and contracts staff, Santa Barbara County Water Agency, and the Cachuma Project Member Units representatives. USSR also allowed COMB to attend. ID No.1 representatives included the General Manager, Paeter Garcia the District's legal counsel and water policy manager, and Bill Luce consultant to ID No.1 and former USSR Area Manager. The purpose of the USSR technical session was to discuss and come to decision points on the agenda items: Contract Term/Duration, Evaporation, Minimum Pool Strategies for Yield & Available Supply, and Contract process timeline/schedule.

USSR indicated the purpose of this meeting to discuss and come to some decision points for a "renewal" of the water service contract. As pointed out, the term "renewal" does not apply since the 1995 Master Contract was a hybrid; water repayment for 20 years and water service for the last 5 years of the 25 years term. The capital repayment portion was paid off by September 2015 by the CMU's. USSR agreed but the intent is to have a water service contract in place prior to the expiration and to continue to serve

12

water to the CMU's. Mr. Jackson stated that the contract will be subject to Reclamation Law and will be consistent with all other west-wide contracts.

The term of contract would be a minimum of 25 years and USSR will consider a 40 year contract with certain provisions and subject to consistency with other Reclamation contracts.

The next subjects were complex and complicated with no agreed reached. Extensive discussion occurred related to evaporation, how it is applied to "Project" water, issues with evaporation deducted from the south coast's State Water, Scenario 83, and the City requesting to reconcile the evap charged and apply a credit. After a lengthy discussion, USSR indicated they would consider methods for measuring and would look at other contract language. Related to the calculations and the application of evaporation to the water, there was not concurrence by the participants. USBR tabled that item for the CMU's to discuss further after 1 hour.

Minimum Pool was a topic of debate with USSR stressing 12,000 AF is a minimum to be left in storage but would review other USBR contacts and definitions. It was made clear that a minimum pool is needed to accomplish the downstream water rights releases. This topic led to Project Yield & Available Supply, the definitions and types of water held in Cachuma. Discussion then included elevation 660' that delineates the lowest point of diversion for the south coast, evaporation calculations to be revised requested by the south coast so that the water below 660' can be utilized as available supply, levels of shortages based on "Project" remaining in the lake, the barge extension and making "all" water available, and other more complicated issues that resulted in no decision points by USSR. After four hours, USBR requested that the CMU's consider, then propose changes. 101 suggested that the new contract should contain basic contract language and separately address the details in the operational guidelines document. Based on the discussion, USBR will then make its determination.

Finally, USBR presented its Contract renewal process timeline/schedule. The first milestone was USBR would prepare a Basis of Negotiation by October 2017. The BON would provide a project description which is needed for environmental review purposes. Based on the complicated issues, the timing is likely to slip substantially. The timeline also identified contract negotiations to be at the end of this calendar year of beginning of 2018.

Following the USBR session, the County's Steering Committee meeting was held on September 6, 2017. The primary discussion item was Evaporation and focused on how the Evaporation would be applied, measurement method, and calculations. The subject of what water would be subject to evaporation charges and when the deduction would be applied was not agreed upon. Some participants wanted to apply evaporation to all water in storage. This included downstream water rights water and other water held in the lake .. It was noted that there are provisions in the water rights orders that exclude

13

the downstream water from evaporation charges. The timing of the evaporation charges was also discussed but the topic remains open due to its complexity. Other evaporation items including which accounts would be subject to evaporation, for instance charged to current Year Project Water, Carryover Project Water, current Year Non-Project Water, carryover Non-Project Water or unallocated water. Also debated were the triggers and calculations for evaporation. This is a complex topic and one that could change the mass balance of the accounts. No resolution was reached.

An equally debated subject was the difference between "Available Supply'' and "Project Water" with the south coast and County believing there is a need for revisions of contract definitions. These are USBR definitions contained in multiple USBR contracts. No concurrence was reached except to have USBR provide language.

There has been no activity related to the new or technical terms, conditions or definitions nor meetings in preparation of negotiating the 2020 new Water Service Contract. However, ID No.1 is scheduling a meeting with the Mid-Pacific Regional office Director and high level management to discuss contracting options. The meeting is anticipated to occur in November 2017.

With no local activity, Paeter Garcia, the District's Legal Affairs and Policy Manager and our Consultant Bill Luce met on November 28, 2107 with the USBR Deputy Regional Director and staff to discuss a variety of contract options for ID No.1 including an individual contract between Reclamation and ID No.1, with separate individual contracts between Reclamation and each of the other four CMUs; an individual contract between Reclamation and ID No.1, with a separate single contract between Reclamation and the other four CMUs; an individual contract between Reclamation and ID No.1, with a separate single contract between Reclamation and the County Water Agency on behalf of the four other CMUs; a single contract between Reclamation and each of the CMUs as signatories; and a single contract between Reclamation, each of the CMUs, and the County Water Agency as signatories. It was requested that USBR explore any and all alternatives and follow-up with a meeting in Sacramento or Fresno.

A follow-up meeting is scheduled with USBR on January 181h, 2018. No Steering

Committee meetings have been scheduled by the County Water Agency.

The meeting at the WUC was well attended by 12 USBR representatives ranging from the Regional Director, Deputy Regional Director, Area Manager, and staff from Contracts, Water Rights, Environmental, and Financial Divisions. Most were from the Mid-Pacific Regional office in Sacramento. ID#1 was represented by the General Manager, the Water Policy and Legal Affairs Manager and the District's Consultant and former USBR Area Manager Bill Luce. The primary discussion in the 20 minute appointment was the contracting options available to ID#1. After a brief overview of ID#1 and its status as a Member Unit and a Downstream water rights holder, USBR Regional Director understood ID#1 's position and agreed to have the options defined and provided to ID#1 at a follow up meeting.

14

A meeting is being set with the SCCAO management either on February 22 or 26 to discuss the outcome of the instruction by the Regional Director.

In a recent Santa Barbara County Water Agency meeting on April 5, 2018 with the Cachuma Member Units (plus COMB and the SYRWCD), /D1 reported on its meetings with USSR expressing its preference for a new Water Service Contract that either includes all of the five Cachuma Member Units with the County, or a partial assignment as defined by USSR. The County then disclosed that its staff has met with US BR and indicated it would only entertain a contract between USSR and the County. Further discussions will be necessary. ID1 management is meeting in Sacramento with the USSR Regional Director and other staff on May 9, 2018 to continue the pursuit of a multiple party Water Service Contract.

ID No.1 Management met with USSR at ACWA expressing its preference for a new Water Service Contract that either includes all of the five Cachuma Member Units with the County, or a partial assignment as defined by USSR. This contract arrangement is also supported by the City of Santa Barbara. No other reports from the County have been provided to the CMU's at this time.

No activity occurred in June with the exception of 101 management submitting written correspondence to USBR directly.

3. Transfer of the Operation and Maintenance of Cachuma Transferred "Project Works" -Contract No 14-06-5222R This contract was originally executed on February 24, 1956 between USSR and Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board for the "Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Transferred Project Works. The "Project Works" are defined in the Contract as the Tecolote Tunnel and the South Cost Conduit System. The 1956 contract expired in 1995 was then amended on May 12, 1995. Four Interim Contracts were executed in 2001 and 2002 until finally completed on March 1, 2003. This contract now expires in September 1, 2020.

In accordance with the contract, the title of the "Project Works" remain with USSR with COMB having the obligation to operate and maintain those facilities for the parties that benefit from those facilities; specifically the south Coast agencies, at no expense to USSR. There is an error in the language under Article 12 (a) indicating that COMB ("Contractor") shall deliver water through the Transferred Project Works for the benefit of the south coast member units and ID No.1. ID No.1 has never taken nor does not take any of its Cachuma water from the "Transferred Project Works". ID No.1 has its own downstream delivery point. In other words, ID No.1 does not receive any benefit from the Project Works as defined in the contract.

With this contract expiration in 2020, COMB has requested a meeting on July 1 2, 2017 to discuss the O&M contract renewal process.

15

At the July 12, 2017 meeting that was attended by Gary Kvistad, Legal Counsel for ID No.1. All of the other 4 managers were at the meeting. In essence, the meeting was a kick-off meeting to start the process with Reclamation. A copy of a more detailed agenda was handed out (see attached). The following were discussed (no particular order):

• The Reclamation standard terms that Janet Gingras circulated via email were from Reclamation are supposedly mandatory provisions.

• All thought it was appropriate to have separate meeting from the Master Contract due different subject, timing and no County involvement.

• All thought it was appropriate for COMB to send the letter of interest to Reclamation (place on COMB July 241

h agenda).

• Mr. Kvistad indicated that the District's interest is limited since the Transferred Project Works fum ish water to the South Coast member units. The District should not have been referenced in the current contract. The primary goal will be to ensure the new contract does not adversely affect the District.

• Likely that the new BiOp will impact the new contract, substance and timing. Quite possible will need an interim contract.

• Need to review the agreements referenced in exhibit B to the current contract.

• The "Project Works" should be better defined, both at the Lake and at the turnouts.

• According to Carter (he was not at the meeting), the approval of the new contract does not require unanimous consent.

• The Member Units were encouraged to review the current contract and identify areas of interest for negotiation in order to develop the BON.

• COMB will prepare minutes of each meeting.

• The change in organization provision was brought up with respect to the District's withdrawal but did not go anywhere.

• Reclamation is supposed to appropriate $140,000-200,000 for the process, which will likely not be enough for environmental review. Likely COMB will need to fund, but not sure.

• COMB's future use of the barge may need to be considered since it is essentially an extension of the transferred project works.

• There was discussion of keeping the new contract somewhat general, as now, and then have a separate agreement between the South Coast member units being more specific on how the project works are operated.

• COMB will assemble and distribute inter-related agreements/contracts for everyone's use.

16

No meetings or correspondence has been forwarded since the above meeting.

On January 31, COMB convened a conveyance meeting with the Cachuma Member Units with an agenda that included a Cachuma Elevation model, Evaporation Study, and a Draft Operational Plan. COMB staff presented the elevation projection model with multiple assumptions for water use and downstream releases. The model has not been peer reviewed.

An evaporation study and analysis was prepared by COMB staff that described impacts on water supply and the purported benefit for the ANA based on discrepancies of the evaporation pan methodology conducted by USSR. COMB proposed a water surface evaporation buoy for a cost of $130,000. The basis of the study was not made available for peer review. This did not go forward at this meeting.

The last topic was the COMB draft operational plan and grant funding for reinstallation of a permanent or COMB's term "secured" pipeline extension from the Tecolote Tunnel to site 1 and 2. After the cost discussion and timing, this was tabled for further consideration. 10#1 objected to a permanent pipeline.

On April 5, 2018, 101 learned that COMB was meeting with the four south coast Member Units to further discuss the "secured" pipeline extension. Neither 101 nor the SYRWCD were included in the meeting, or to receive the information related to that discussion. Management will inquire about the meeting and the outcome.

No activity in June.

17

Santa Barbara County Public Works Department Flood Control (/)Water Agency 4 Project Clean Water

June 20, 2018

Mr. Michael Jackson, PE Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office United State Bureau of Reclamation 1243 "N" Street Fresno, CA 9372.1-1813

RE: EJ<tension of Cachuma Reservoir Water Year 2019 Allocation Request

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Pursuant to Article 3 of Cachuma Project Contract 175r-1802R, the Santa Barbara County Water Agency (Water Agency) is to submit an allocation request prior to July 1 on behalf of the Cachuma Member Units (MU}. We respectfully request the Bureau of Reclamation grant the Water Agency a one month extension to August 1, 2018, to submit an allocation request for Water Year 2019.

On June 18, 2018, the Water Agency received the enclosed letter from the MUs requesting a 40% allocation of 10,285 acre-feet for Water Year 2019. The Water Agency has not had to time to sufficiently evaluate the MUs proposal and projections and would like to discuss the proposal with the MUs before submitting the annual allocation request to the Bureau. The Water Agency intends to proceed carefully when considering allocating water during historic and continued drought conditions in order to preserve lake levels for the transmission of State Water and to avoid the depleted conditions that were reached in 2016. Finally, it is our understanding that this short extension will not delay actual water deliveries.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 805-568-3436.

Sincerely,

n ~ Mr___../ "' ~ (\ '-' -.._- r ~

Thomas D. Fayram, PE Deputy Public Works Director Water Resources Division

Enclosure

Naomi Schwartz Building Scolt /J. McGolpin

Public Works Director 130 E. Victoriu Street. Suite 200, Suntu Bznburu, Cdiforniu 93101 Thomos D. F'tJVfilnl

PH: 805 5GI3-3,l'-JO fAX: 1305 56R-3.:.J34 hllp://cosb.countyofsh.orglpwcl/wuler/ Deputr Public Wor!.:s Director

Mr. Michael Jackson, Area Manager

United State Bureau of Reclamation Re: Extension of Cachuma Reservoir Water Year 2019 Allocation Request

June 20, 2018 Page 2

CC sent via emaii:Ms. Janet Gingras, COMB

Mr. Chris Dahlstrom, SYRWCD ID#l Mr. John Mcinnis, Goleta Water District Mr. Joshua Haggmark, City of Santa Barbara Mr. Nicholas Turner, Montecito Water District

Mr. Robert McDonald, Carpinteria Water District

July 23, 2018

Santa Barbara County Public Works Department Flood Control Ql Water Agency ()) Project Clean Water

Mr. Michael Jackson, PE Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office United States Bureau of Reclamation 1243 "N" Street Fresno, CA 93721-1813

RE: Cachuma Reservoir Water Year 2019 Allocation Request

Dear Mr. Jackson:

On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Bur·eau of Reclamation (Reclamation) granted the Santa Barbara County Water Agency (Water Agency) a one month extension for submittal oft he annual allocation request to review a letter from the Member Units dated June 18, 2018, requesting a 40% allocation (10,285 acre-feet) for Water Year (WY) 2019 (enclosed).

The Water Agency has followed up with the Member Units with two recommendations; first, a zero allocation, and secondly, a two-step allocation to reach 40% as detailed below. The Member Units continue to request a 40% allocation as detailed in their June 18, 20181etter, which is attached to this letter and which was previously attached to the Water Agency's June 20, 2018 extension request. Accordingly, the Water Agency has and continues to fulfill its contractual obligations under Article 3(a) of Cachuma Project Contract 175r-1802R by delivering the Member Units' request to Reclamation.

The Water Agency has reviewed the Member Unit's 2019 allocation request for Cachuma Project Water and is concemed ifthere is sufficient water to support the request given the Water Agency's evaluation of current conditions in the reservoir, particularly when accounting for evaporation and the ongoing drought. 1 Following the granted extension and in further communications with the Member Units, the Water Agency proposed to meet the Member Units r·equest by allocating the Project Water in 2 steps. This proposal would ensure there is

1 ln addition, please note that it appears that some of the current carry over water (2017 allocation) has not yet been distributed and most if not all of the current year (2018) allocated water will be carried over into the 2019 WY.

Naomi Schwartz Building Sco!l D. McGolpin 130 E. Viclnria SlreeL SLJile 200, S.lnl;~ 8;-~rbar:l, C1lifnrni,1 9.~ 101 Thom~s D. r=~vr;-~m

Public \Vor!~.s Director PH: 30.'1 -~6H-:l-1-1(l f=r\X: 805 5613-:i,U--1 h1tp://cosh.cnunl\'nl5h.orgipwcliw>11L'r/ Depuly Public Wnrl;:,:. DireLtor

Cachuma Project Member Units

Goleta Water District City of Santa Barbara

Montecito Water District Carpinteria Valley Water District

Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1

June 18, 2018

Thomas D. Fayram Deputy Public Works Director Santa Barbara County Water Agency 130 E. Victoria Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, California 93101

RE: Notice on Behalf of All Cachuma Member Units Specifying Total Quantity of Available Supply

Requested for Water Year 2018-19

Dear Mr. Fayram:

Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the April14, 1996 Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara

County Water Agency (SBCWA) Providing for Water Service from the Project, Contract No. 17Sr-1B02R

("Master Contract"), the Cachuma Project Member Units, acting jointly, hereby provide Notice to the

Santa Barbara County Water Agency requesting 10,28S acre-feet (AF) as Available Supply from the

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) during Water Year 2018-19, commencing October 1, 2018.

Pursuant to section 1(a), "'Available Supply' shall mean the maximum quantity of Project Water the

Contracting Officer is authorized by Federal law, State law, and the Project Water Rights to make

available to the Cachuma Member Units during each Water Year pursuant to this contract." Modeling

performed by the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB) and Member Units offuture lake

levels and projected imports, exports and releases of water through Lake Cachuma (Attachment 1)

demonstrates there is 10,28S acre-feet of Available Supply in WY 2018-19 to meet the Cachuma

Member Units' request. The attached graphic (Attachment 2) demonstrates water available to the

various accounts and rights-holders in Lake Cachuma, and illustrates the remaining Available Supply

through September 30, 2019.

As required by section 3(a) the Master Contract, the Cachuma Member Units are also submitting the

attached delivery schedules for each respective agency over Water Year 2018-19 and estimate of

projected water deliveries (Attachment 3).

Pursuant to section 3(a), the Cachuma Member Agencies request that SBCWA promptly deliver to USBR

a copy of any subsequent Notice given to SBCWA by, or on behalf of, all Cachuma Member Units acting

jointly specifying any revised proposed Supply To Be Delivered, or any revised proposed Delivery

Schedule for the Water Year.

Sincerely,

[Signatures to follow on page 2)

'. ,,

1 2

Rev. S.C.C. 10/26-1995 . Rev. RO. 02/08-1996

3 -4

5 6

7 8 9

10

11

UNTIED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE IN1ERIOR B~UOFRE~TION

Cachuma Project, California

Irrigation (with M&I) Contract No.

CON'IRACT BETWEEN TIIE UNITED STATES AND

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE FROM THE PRQJECT

I75r-1802R

Li~ /) . (] {'l, I THIS CON'IRACT, made tills .l.l: day of _...~.t/...qf~'/4%._..?~~=--~ 19 ~

12 in pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or

13 supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the Acts of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat.

14 1187), as amended and supplemented, July 2,)956 (70 Stat. 483), June 21, 1963 (77 Stat.

15 68), October 12, 1982 (96 Stat. 1262), as amended, all collectively hereinafter referred to

16 as the Federal Reclamation laws, between the UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA,

17 hereinafter referred to as the United States, and the SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

18 WATER AGENCY, hereinafter referred to as the Contractor, a public agency of the

19 State of California, duly organized, existing, and acting_pursuant to the laws thereof, with

20 its principal place of business in Santa Barbara, California;

21 WITNESSETH, That:

22 EXPLANATORY RECITALS

23 WHEREAS, the United States has constructed and is operating the

24 Cachuma Project for diversion, storage, carriage, and distribution of waters of

3

' - •' ,·

· 1 deliveries for each Water Year during the remainder of the Repayment Period, with

2 each Water Year's deliveries showing: (A) Irrigation Water which will be scheduled to

3 . be delivered (Irrigation Water Storage); (B) Irrigation Water which will be scheduled to

4 be delivered through the Tecolote Thnnel (Irrigation Water Conveyance); (C) M&r

5 Water which will be scheduled to be delivered (M&I Water Storage); and (D) M&I

6 Water which will be scheduled to be delivered through the Tecolote Tunnel (M&I Water

7 Conveyance). The Contractor shall promptly deliver to the Contracting Officer a-copy of

8 any subsequent Notice given to the Contractor by, or on behalf of, all Cachuma Member

9 Units acting jointly specifying any revised proposed Supply To Be Delivered or auy

10 revised proposed Delivery Schedule for the Water Year.

11 (b) The Contracting Officer shall promptly either (i) approve the Supply .

12 To Be Delivered aud Delivery Schedule as proposed in any Notice delivered pursuant to -·.

13 subarticle 3 (a) or, (ii) if the Contracting Officer determines that such Notice proposes a

14 Supply To Be Delivered in excess of the quantity the Contracting Officer is authorized

15 by law to deliver or a Delivery ~cbedule that exceeds the physical limitations-of the

16 Project, the Contracting Officer shall approve a Supply To Be Delivered or a Delivery

17 Schedule modified to conform to such determination and shall apportion any decreases

18 among the Cachuma Member Units according to the percentages specified in subarticle

19 3 (c). The Contracting Officer shall promptly give Notice to the Contractor of all

20 approvals of a Supply To Be Delivered or a Delivery Schedule.

14

. 1 Officer, the Contractor, or the Cachuma Member Units have under the Original

2 Contract or Reclamation law with respect to renewal of this contract.

3 (b) Whenever the Secretazy determines, account being taken of the

4 amount credited to Irrigation Capital Costs, the remaining amount of such Irrigation

5 Capital Costs properly allocated for ultimate return by the Contractor cin probably tie

6 repaid to the United States within the term of a contract under subsection 9(d) of the

7 · 1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187), upon written request by the Contractor,

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

this contract, as it pertains to the furnishing of Irrigation Water, may be converted to a

contract under subsection 9( d) of the 1939 Reclamation Project Act (53 Stat. 1187),

which contract shall include terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the United

States and the Contractor.

WATER TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AND DELIVERED TO 1HE CACHUMA , MEMBER UNITS r: , ' rr of:

. . ;_; £_, ) 1 '-!'-' ~ J;!:r 3. (a) 1bree months pnor to each Water Year, the Contractor shall @n'-"'J/J·~

deliver to the Contracting Officer a copy of any Notice given to the Contractor by, or on Q!Jftl' ,

behalf of, all Cachuma Member Units acting jointly specifying (i) the total quantity of

Available Supply that the Cachuma Member Units have requested be delivered during

the next Water Year, which quantity shall be the proposed Supply To Be Delivered for . -

that Water Year, (ii) the schedule' by month of the quantities of Project Water that are

to be delivered to each Cachuma Member Unit and any transferee thereof during that

Water Year, which schedule shall be the proposed "Delivery Schedule" for that Water

Year, and (iii) an estimate of projected water deliveries to be made during the

remainder of the Repayment Period, Such estimate shall include projected water

13

Cachuma Project Member Units

Goleta Water District City of Santa Barbara

Montecito Water District Carpinteria Valley Water District

Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1

June 18, 2018

Thomas D. Fayram Deputy Public Works Director Santa Barbara County Water Agency 130 E. Victoria Street, Suite 200 Santa Barbara, California 93101

RE: Notice on Behalf of All Cachuma Member Units Specifying Total Quantity of Available Supply

Requested for Water Year 2018-19

Dear Mr. Fayram:

Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Apri/14, 1996 Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara

County Water Agency (SBCWA) Providing for Water Service from the Project, Contract No. 17Sr-1802R

("Master Contract"), the Cachuma Project Member Units, acting jointly, hereby provide Notice to the

Santa Barbara County Water Agency requesting 10,28S acre-feet (AF) as Available Supply from the

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) during WaterY ear 2018-19, commencing October 1, 2018.

Pursuant to section 1(a), "'Available Supply' shall mean the maximum quantity of Project Water the

Contracting Officer is authorized by Federal law, State law, and the Project Water Rights to make

available to the Cachuma Member Units during each Water Year pursuant to this contract." Modeling

performed by the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board {COMB) and Member Units of future lake

levels and projected imports, exports and releases of water through Lake Cachuma (Attachment 1)

demonstrates there is10,28S acre-feet of Available Supply in WY 2018-19 to meet the Cachuma

Member Units' request. The attached graphic (Attachment 2) demonstrates water available to the

various accounts and rights-holders in Lake Cachuma, and illustrates the remaining Available Supply

through September 30, 2019.

As required by section 3{a) the Master Contract, the Cachuma Member Units are also submitting the

attached delivery schedules for each respective agency over Water Year 2018-19 and estimate of

projected water deliveries (Attachment 3).

Pursuant to section 3(a), the Cachuma Member Agencies request that SBCWA promptly deliver to USBR

a copy of any subsequent Notice given to SBCWA by, or on behalf of, all Cachuma Member Units acting

jointly specifying any revised proposed Supply To Be Delivered, or any revised proposed Delivery

Schedule for the Water Year.

Sincerely,

[Signatures to follow on page 2)

John Mcfnnes

Kelley Dyer Water Supply Manager City of Santa Barbara

By: ____ _

Nicholas Turner General Manager Montecito Water District

By:. ____ _

Robert McDonald General Manager Carpinteria Valley Water District

By:. ____ _

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No.1

By: -----

Cc: Michael Jackson, PE, Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office, United States Bureau of Reclamation

Enclosures:

Attachment 1 COMB Lake Level Model Summary Attachment 2 Available Supply Chart Attachment 3 Cachuma Member Unit M&l and Agricultural Water Delivery Schedules

John Mcinnes General Manager Goleta Water District

By: _____ _



By: ____ _


By: ____ _


By: -----

Cc: Michael Jackson, PE, Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office, United States Bureau of Reclamation

Enclosures:



By: _____ _


By: -----

Nicholas Turner General Manager

Mon~ecit$,r District

By: /t----V--f.L--


By: -----


By: -----

Cc: Michael Jackson, PE, Area Manager, South-Central California Area Office, United States Bureau of

Reclamation

Enclosures:



By: __ ~---


By: ____ _


By: ----

Robert McDonald General Manager Car ~eria Valley Water District

By~ j_) ff , Q~--

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager Santa Ynel River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No.1

By: ____ _


Reclamation

Enclosures:



By:. _____ _


By: ____ _


By: ____ _


By: -----

Chri~trom

Gen~ral Mynager Santa~y~ RiverWateJ'onservation District, Improvement District No.1

~~-~··· ·I r;,,Q.


Reclamation

Enclosures:


. .

Attachment 1: Lake Cachuma Projected Storage with

Repeat of WY 2014-2015 Dry Period With 40% Allocation

for WY 2018-2019

90,000

so,ooo

70,000

60,0(10

50,000

<10,000

JO,OfJD

20,000

10,000

-----------·-··--······---··

Figure 2. Lake Cachuma Projected Storage with Repeat of WY 2014-2015 Dry Period With 40% allocation for WY2019

A 0 N 0 lv1 A M o N 0 M A M

WY2019 WY2020

c:::::::::5)\;\inilnum pool

<=>=Imported \Valet Balance

t::::o:::1 Evap on Uncalot;Drized Waler ~-Lal<e Volume

A 5

Attachment 2: Available Supply Chart for WY 2018-2019

-"' "' "" "' -u ..:

fiO,OOO

55,000

50,000

45,000

40,000

JS,O!JO

JO,OOO

Imported

25,000

1D,O'JO

15,0[10

10,000

5,000

0

LAI<E CACHUMA

GWD=3556AF sec= 6519 'AF MWD= 1604AF cvwo=7oDAF SYRWCD I Dill= 243 AF

Stored 1,118 AF

GWD= 142AF SBC= BBAF MWD= 226 AF CVWD= 662AF

Available Supply perContract Remaining 13~161 AF

WY2019 1. B~sed on Modeled l~h Velum" piU5 Proj~ct Rplnfall and Tunnel Inflow for WY2019 3. Ba~ed on Mean E11ap deterrmlned by Water Agency

MOd,e!ed prbj~_ctions·show that !)n_~ Of totaLevaP_.W_ill'be applied to lifl~a:t,og~_r_i_ze_d_ ~ater.·. Re.maining. 4?%

to~hi!~aP.Will·,be applied tci store'ct-water_(Cili-rYOv'er/lmpOrted). - ·

BNA Ai:c0Liht833 -AF

Attachment 3: Cachuma Member Unit M&l and

Agricultural Water Delivery Schedules

ENTITLEMENT REQUEST BREAKDOWN - AG / M & I 2018-2019 WATER YEAR: 1ST PERIOD REQUEST (10/01/18-3/31/19)

CACHUMA PROJECT, CONTRACT I75r-1802R

MEMBER UNIT

Goleta Water Distri.ct

City of Santa Barbara

Ivtontecito VVater District

Carpinteria Valley Water Distr.ict

SYRWCD-IJJ#l

U.S.B.R. TOTALS

Classification AF

M&I Irrigation

Total

M &I Total

M&I Irrigation

Total

M&I Irrigation

Total

M & I Irrigation

Total

TOTAL Ordered

698 461

1,159

1,018 1,018

344 26

370

259 305 564

60 95

155

3,266

Breakdown is based on the percentages defined in the Renewal Master Contract, dated April 14, 1996. Pursuant to Bureau of Reclamation letter to Santa Barbara County Water Agency dated August 10, 1981, it is require( use whole acre-feet, commencing Water Year 1982-83.

ENTITLEMENT REQUEST BREAKDOWN - AG / M & I 2018-2019 WATER YEAR: 2nd PERIOD REQUEST (4/01/19-9/30/19)

CACHUMA PROJECT, CONTRACT 175r-1802R

Goleta Water District

City of Santa Barbara

Montecito Water District

Carpinteria Valley Water District

SYRWCD-ID#J

U.S.B.R. TOTALS

Classification

M&I Irrigation

Total

M&I Total

M&I Irrigation

Total

M & I Irrigation

Total

M& I Irrigation

Total

TOTAL AF Ordered

1,810 759

2,569

2,293 2,293

642 48

690

258 304 562

290 615 905

7,019

Breakdown is based on the percentages defined in the Renewal Master Contract, dated April 14, 1996. Pursuant to Bureau of Reclamation letter to Santa Barbara County Water Agency dated August 10, 1981, it is require[ use whole acre-feet, commencing Water Year 1982-83.

2018-19 WATER YEAR CACHUMA ENTITLEMENT OBLIGATION- WATER DELIVERY SCHEDULE (All figures are in Acre Feet)

Carpinteria Goleta Montecito City of SYRWCD Month VIVO IVD IVD Santa Barbara ID#l

October, 2018 94 566 96 316 72

November 94 370 68 310 I

December 94 93 48 120 I

January, 2019 94 17 40 17 2

February 94 53 58 73 2

March 94 60 60 182 77 SUB-TOTAL 564 1159 370 · .llO.IB>> .. . ISS April 94 366 79 267 85

May 94 200 98 370 110

june 94 367 101 367 ISS

july 94 531 119 414 192

August 94 575 liS 468 186

September 92 530 178 407 177 SUB-TOTAL 562 2569 690 2293 905 TOTAL Entitlement 1126 3728 1060 3311 1060

0 0 0 0 0 Entitlement Request 1126 3728 1060 3311 1060

Entitlement% ' ' I ' I . i ' i r:'>l"i[_---r · i I 1 1-1_-: __ :L·l:,._!:·f'--1-l- 1_.-:r_:::p_;_~i_;_·;r ' r -1::--,!D::-Inn ;:_r_,·r,':f_::f~:i T '·'·:: I I 1: I'IL!_il:i ' ''·. , __ '.c_•::•"" .. l i i _I.Ii6 ___ - :J72a ___ .. _._. 1os!i -·--~~-----·3·31-1--~-· 1060--TOTAL

TOTALS

1144

843

356

170

280

473 3266 891

872

1084

1350

1438

1384 7019

10285 0

10285

40.00 l_ I 1':-.:---J --To2ss

September 19, 2017

Mr. Michael Jackson Area Manager U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation South-Central California Area Office 1243 N Street Fresno, CA 93721

CACHUMA OPERATiON AND MAINTENANCE BOARD 330 l LAUREL CANYON ROAD

SANTA BARBARA, CAUFORNIA 93105-2017 TELEPHONE (805) 687-4011 FAX (805)569-5825

www.tachurila-bo"ard.org

RE: Cachuma Project 2018 Water Rates; 2015 and 2016 Deficits; Reclamation Budget Process

Dear Mr. Jackson,

The purpose of this letter is to request information on certain matters related to water rates and to relay the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board's (COMB) desire for continuing, clear communications between Reclamation and COMB so that we rnay better accomplish the duties we carry out on behalf of Reclamation.

As you know, COMB is responsible for administering provisions of the Water Rates Agreement for the Cachuma Project. This includes calculating and distributing bills and assessments for water; administering payments from the Cachuma Member Units to the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Master Contract, the Cachuma Member Unit water supply contracts with Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the water rates agreement. COMB is required to make payment directly to the United States to satisfy those agreements.

The COMB board respectfully requests the Following:

o Detailed information outlining projected water marketing and storage reimbursable costs on the Cachuma Project for water year 2018.

• Explanation and detailed justification regarding Cachuma Project Water Years 2015 and 2016 deficits recently identified by the rate-setting branch of Reclamation (Sacramento).

• COMB Member Agencies' inclusion in Reclamation's annual budgetary process for reimbursable and non-reimbursable operation and maintenance expenditures related to the Cachuma Project.

The Cachuma Project 2018 Water Ratas and affiliated schedules have been provided to COMB by the rate-setting branch of Reclamation in Sacramento for the annual payment of water deliveries. The rates for many years included a Capital repayment portion in addition to an Operation and Maintenance (0 & M) repayment portion. The rates for water year 2018 no longer include a Capital repayment portion as the Project cost was paid in full during fiscal year 2015. However, the water marl<eting and storage projected costs (0 & M) for water year 2018 have increased considerably as compared to prior water years. On behalf of its Member Agencies, COMB is requesting detailed, supplemental information outlining projected water marketing and storage reimbursable costs on the Cachuma Project for water year 2018.

2JPRge

In addition, deficits have been identified for water years ending September 2015 and September 2015. The deficits are significant and total more than $1.4 million for the two years combined. I nave included a variance analysis performed by Reclamation's rate-setting branch to showcase th·e percentage increase over three fiscal years. The COMB board requests a detailed .explanation of the difference betWee.n budgeted and actual costs in those years. This lnfonnation, combined with what we've requested regarding the 2018 water rates, will help us understand how costs have been allocated so that we are able to justify the expenditure of local public funds under our various contracts and agreements with Reclamation.

The budgetary process undertaken by each of the COMB M13mber Agencies on an annual basts is complex and requires advanced planning. Underpinning their budgets ate .the individual agencies' own water rates, which are structured per the requirements of California's P·rop 218. Prop 218 requires a l!'!ngthy public rate setting process to be undertaken by each Member Agency, which is often handled ori a five year cycle. When unfunded liabilities arise, addressing them can prevent agencies from carrying out other essential functions. In the past, COMB and its Member Age[)¢ies have been notified and benefited greatly from the opportunity to interact with the Bureau during Its annual budgetary process in which Reclamation formulates its budget for the Cachuma Project Over the past eighteen months, COMB has requested several times, in writing, information on Reclamation's budget development schedule and for notification to include COMB and the Member Agencies in the process. Those requests have not been responded to in the way we had hoped and, as a result, the COMB Member Agencies have not had the ability to anticipate and adequately prepare for the budgetary impacts bf Reclamation's budget decisions. Returning to a process that includes COMB's participation would be extremely helpful to COMB and we feel it would be of value to Reclamation.

!look forward to receiving information from you on these matters that I can relay to the COMB board .atits next meeting. As always, I am happy to talk with you about this and all matters of shared interest.

:;::~ Jan.et Gingras General Manager

Encl/

CC: Santa Barbara County Water Agency Goleta Water District City of Santa Barbara Carpinteria Valley Water District Montecito Water District Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District1 10 Ni?. 1

CACHUMA PROJECT 2018 WATER RATE SCHEDULES

CachUITlil Profect 2018 Walt!r Ralt!s ~ Sch of Sl!mi-A11nual Payment Revised December G 2017 .ZZOJ.ln 09/812017

Excludes Deficit Rates (:!015 through 2017 Q&M Cost are under Review)

CACHUMA PROJECT SCHEDULE OF SEMI-ANNUAL PA'I'MENT

2018 WATER RATES Updated Docember6,2017

First Semi--annual Payment Second SemJ.annuat Payment Total Water Rates Deflvml!ls

(Nf) 11 v

Goleta WD lrrlgation $108.09 439 M&l 5166.09 1,023

City of Santi! llarbarn M&l $168.09 766

Carpinteria Valley WO lrrlgaUon $166.09 "' M&l $168,09 201

MontecitoWD lrrigalian 5166.09 '" M&l 5165.09 ,.,

San!<! Ynez RWCD ID #1 Irrigation $166,09 95 M&l $160.09 "

3.473

Payment

D"' /1)"(2)

S73,791.68 171,956.47

128,75724

33,449.99 33,786.17

8,068.34 107,914.03

15,966.59 10,0115.42

sss3,7n.!l2

Water Rates Deliveries (Nf)

11 v

5168.09 "' $166.09 1,586

$168.09 2,545

$168,09 <DO S168.09 Jt7

S160.09 " $168.09 '" S168.09 615 $169.09 200

6.811

11 Based on Exhibit A, Cachurna Project 2016 Water Rates (In eludes Extr.~ott!in;uy O&MJ.

21 Bil!ied on Cachuma Project Water Delivery Estimates far 2016

Payment o,. (1)"(2)

$114,301.46 S"Z66,591.36

$427,790,04

$68,58!1.80 553,284.65

$4,370.35 $57,623,09

5103,375.59 $48,746.21

S1,144,663.63

Summary:

Deliveries (Nf)

1,119 2,609

3,311

"' "' 14

905

710 JSD

10,264

Estimated Water Mark!!Ufl!l Cost Esijmal!!d Slor.:~ge Cost Estimated Exlnmrt!lnary O&M In Rates• Tela] far ttm 201 B Water Rale!i 'AMUol A""""'t{C<~>t Rlla>V~IJ' lsJ Voon)

Payments

$168,093.14 438,547.112

556,547.27

102,030.67 67,070.82

12,430.69 165,737.12

119,344.16 59,631.64

$1,726,641.55

-ISII.OOO.On

1l.j~.ooo.na

4:U,Ii-ll~

1.7~ft,.041,55

Cachuma Project20tll Water Ra!il!i.-Projected 0&/1.1 E.llp!!n~e~ Rev \sed Decem.tmr 4 :!D17.Z:.!O..xls~ 1:!104/2017

CACHUMA PROJECT SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES

BY COMPONENT AND APPLICABLE RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 2018 WATER RATES

Stomge Water Marlmting Stor.J[Jil XO&M (Recover<l<l Over 3 'r'e.Jr~)

Delivelie:5 (A/F) IRR

"" Total

lrrlgatlon Ra\Jo

2,510 0.:!4407 2,510 0.24407 2.510 11.24407

2.510 7.n4

10.2!14

Based on project~ 0&/1.1 Cll~l5 provided by Sarah G~nn (South-Cilnlfill CoHtomla Area Olf=) on l!I2JJ2at7

Total

Water MaJkellng (Reimbul!><lble) Willer and Ene1gy Manage""'"' and Development Fioh ilml Wild lite Management and Development Total WM (Reimbur!klbleJ

Storage {Relmburoilble) Bradbury Dam

E>-tmardmary O&M (Re~vcred Over 3 Yean;) :11 Valve Replat:ement (&!raalllinary OBMJ Ernmynn~ G~n~rutor (Extraordinary O&M)

Total Extraordinary D8M

Tal~!

'

Prujeclcd Co sill

2113.000 175.000 458.000

840.000 Annual Amount@

2.375',{, 1,200,000

10.000 1,210.0011 5422.&11.55

D&M 2J Wat~r

CeJivcr1cs Mil. I

7.774 7,n<~

7.774

FcrSnUing flat=

283,000.00 175.000.00 4511,000.00

MII.UDO.OO

$ 422.(l.ol1.55

$ 1,7:!6,641.55

Rallo

0.75593 0.75593 0.75593

Marketing Storage XDIIM Can~eyance 1!

Cachum~ Project

Jn1gatlon E>-ponses 111.783.35 205,9i0.05 ' 103,153.47 Rate 44.5~5200 82.4511187 ' 41.097000

M&l Exp€11$1!5 346.216.65 6-11,029.95 ' Jl9.4Bil.OB Rate 44.535200 112.-158107 ' 4\.097000

1/ C<!cll<ltn."l O~M Bomllllocs ils own ronv~yance OllM.

11 Proj~:eted l!lpen~es b~tween lnlglltion and Ml'.l ""'\lased on delivery liltlo~. EX<lflllJI!!: Irrigation SIOfilg!! -5648.000 X 24.407%" S205.970.05.

31 lnte"'sl Rate 8a;ed on 2017 T~asury Rille.

Nola: Amounts rn;ry vary due to rnuMing

Total Rallo

10.:!a4 1.000 10,2114 1.000 10.2114 1.000

Total ProJections

421,905.67 IU8.0903Bil

S 1,306.734.1lB

' tllB.OOOJBB

s 1,728.5-11.55

Pn~e 1 of 1

Cachuma Project 2018 Water Rates December 6 2017.Z20.xlsx Exhibit A 12/6/2017

I.

II.

Ill.

CACHUMA PROJECT SCHEDULE OF 2018 WATER RATES

FOR IRRIGATION AND MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL (M&I) CONTRACT NO.I75r-1802R

Irrigation M&l

Capital Rates Per AF 21

Storage $ $

Conveyance $ $

ProJected 2018 Operation and Maintenance {O&Ml Rates 1/

Water Marketing $44.54 $44.54

Storage $ 82.46 $82.46

Extraordinary O&M $ 41.10 $41.10

Conveyance 3/ $0.00 $0.00

Deficit Rates 4/

Deficit FY 2015 41 41

Deficit FY 2016 41 41

Total Water Rate $ 168.09 $ 168.09

1/ FY 2018 O&M costs were bases on the budget provided by the Budget Analyst, Fresno Area Office.

21 Construction Cost Allocated to Cachuma are Paid as of September 2015.

3/ Cachuma O&M Board costs are excluded from these rates and are the direct responsibility of the Cachuma member units.

4/ Member Units are allowed more time to repay any deficit determined for years FY 2015 and FY 2016 identified for them. The activities that resulted in the deficits are under review.

Source: As cited.

Purpose: To determine the 2018 Water Rates for the Cachuma Project under their water service contract for both the Irrigation and M&l functions.

CACHUMA PROJECT 2015, 2016 AND 2017 DEFICITS

CACHUMA PROJECT DEFICITS FOR FYE 2017, 2016, 2015

SOURCE: ANNUAL CACHUMA PROJECT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS- Schedule 25

PROJECT

TYPE DESCRIPTION FY 2017 (DRAFT) FY 2016 FY 2015

REVENUES- CACHUMA PROJECT WATER REVENUES $ 1,129,078 $ 977,028 $ 2,272,353

OPERATING/PROGRAM EXPENSE-FUNDED

MP61N MULTIPURPOSE OPERATIONS

BRADBURY DAM, LAKE CACHUMA & OUTLET WORI<S

8800 BRADBURY DAM

2290000 FA Conversion- Non cap $ 1,182 $ 404 $ 133 3210000 Operation 421,724 478,244 391,129 3211000 SCADA System O&M 12,550 2,583 4,986 3220000 Maintenance 343,554 468,035 976,967 3220300 Hilton Creek Water System Electrical 64,586 356,314 252,848 3230000 Other Direct Expense 32,828 12,753 13,553 3233000 Dam Safty Performance Monitoring 328 0 14,683 3224014 DHW&SW Maintenance 470 0 0

Total Bradbury Dam $ 877,221 $ 1,318,333 $ 1,654,298

8801 BRADBURY DAM- CONTRACT ADMIN.

3320000 Water Marketing $ 60,748 $ 68,507 $ 85,632 3321000 Contract Administration 639 0 0

SOLOOOO Solicitor1S Costs 1,631 24,388 0

Total Bradbuy Dam- Contract Admin. $ 63,018 $ 92,896 $ 85,632

8804 BRADBURY DAM -WATER RIGHTS

3320000 Water Rights $ 129,502 $ 216,522 $ 144,821 3321000 Lompoc Tort CL issues 0 122 739

Total Bradbury Dam- Water Rights $ 129,502 $ 216,644 $ 145,560

8943 NEPA COMPLIANCE

3321000 Nepa Compliance $ 39,981 $ 59,363 $ 20,582

8951 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

1000000 Environmental Monitoring $ 266,903 $ 373,793 $ 227,224

BRADBURY DAM

MP 61N MULTIPOURPOSE OPERATIONS

3220300 Hilton Creek Water Systems Electrical $ $ (232) $

TOTAL OPERATING/PROGRAM EXPENSE- MUJLTIPURPOSE $ 1,376,624 $ 2,060,797 $ 2,133,296

Capital Repayment $ (538,026) Interest $ (14,350)

Surplus/(Deficit) s (247,545) $ (1,083.769) $ (413,319)

1 Cochuma Project 2017 Wal~r Rute•-Uet Pc•~JonZ!O.~bx DB/3c.'20!7

C<1chum<1 Pro!g<t

lnigallon

IMI

~Ft<ii~U~"::>·'-' ·

lrtlgaUon Golat<IWD cmpln12ria Volley WD MonteclloWD Santa Vne!: AWCD ID ~1

Total

Ml>l Gole!llWD City of 5Mia 8arbar3 C3!plnterJa VallcyWD J,1oniL'OIO WO Santa Yner:: RWCD 10 Itt (No Con•

Tntal

:Gr~ird:TOtiJi"-

R;te 505.31 505.31 S05.J1 2JJ.ZB

17%

1J7.07 137.07 137.57 1J7.i!7 95.00

Total Wot.,.

FY Rooenuco

Ac:ro.f'eet 1.260 ~J~.Ii~!I.CO

·~ JHI,061.2J

" 41.9-:0.73 0.00

1.075 098,492.55

2.!135 404,G40A5 :!,725 513.565.75

= 57,271.71 1.110 153,035,70 1,tnJ 115,339..24

OJ% ~!l)t:\ t.;>1J.B6!!.n5

CACHUMA PflOJECT SCHEDULE OF IRRJGATID~I AIID M.!;J REVENUES ArlO fJ.l.OCATEO O.'IM EXFEUSES

SY Cm~PONENT FOR FJSCAL y-~ 2015

Copilot Repayment Ro::eovory

"

144.P!l9.45 72..347.50

9,4fi&.:l-l

""" T'..5.MJ.J!I

104,052.15 132.072.06 22,+039 39,355.70 14.249.32

312.1BZ.62

2017 IRRIGATIDtl AND M!1.1 WATER RATES REVJSEO AUGlhi 22.. 2017

0~1.1

S!crng~ C:ml'l!yanoe 21 41

:.;:::mi:~i..n:~J

;,.·,<.·!),'1:5,~

OpcrnUng Surplllll

Total (IlEFICtn

247,5-14.05

(fi4G.613.7{i}

JJ4.7GU aa 157.911.:!7 t6e,rro.o1 79.331.52 :U.a52.JO 10.402.09

ll.OO 0.00

5:>5,004.1!1 :'47,644 95 <li5.6!1

49!.906.73 (19t.32ll.4J) 524,310.!13 [.!42,1117.24) 105,000.95 (41.252.53) 1U6,0JG20 (7:!,355 20) 1!19,9-!7.10 {95.il57.17)

(li4fi.fi1J.76)

R~oulls ol Oper.~ticn$ Net

8efom lnt~rnst ~ultoof In! orcs! Int. Adj Adjuotmcnt@ Operlll!ono

> 3.2SOOl>

o.oo 247.644.90 o.oo 2.47,644.90

14.349.511 (fi~0.95J.34) (6EO.S!i3.34}

t57,91L27 157,911..27 7S.JJ1.62 ?g.JJJ.52 10,402.09 10,402.09

'"" 0.00

2~7,54-!.!111 2·17,S44.9ll

4,7113.25 (1B6,10JG8) 0.00 (19S,10J.Gll) 0,070 74 (240.on7.9a) """ (240,007.!10) 1,031.62 (42.294 25) 0.00 (4:!.2!J-1.25) 1.609.00 (7-1,10520) 0.00 fT4.165.2B)

GS--1.!17 (~9.512.15) 0.00 (99,512.15)

14,J49.50 (li.5!1,963 34) 0.0!1 (G!Hl,96J.J4)

2 et=JLol'roit':IZ~I&Wo!Urtm.ll .. f':»~ C!I/!12DI7

~·

11TI;ou.., "" GolaU.Ml eo,.,oriov .. ..,"'D "'"""'<23"'0 Sor]la.,.,.t.RWCDID~1

""' ... GoiOIIWD Cllyci!O&ntall><o= ~...,.,\1....,'-'1:1 "''"•Uo"'D S.....-•IIWCDUI,II""'C....

·=·

F""-' Y•••2ttl~ o.no~~

lo1U"-1"' lioleloWD ~=>V>a.,"'D

"""""''''"'D Oon!oY=AV.'CDlO•t

r ... ,

~· ~U>\'>0 r:.., ol!\>n" p., .... c..~ .... \1,...,"'0 U=oolt:>WD a""'aY~R\'o'COJ IC 01 II"' c....]

le101

~rlu•u"-' atld I.ILI TQ"I

1fl5.f.!i

·~ 105.~

·~ ·~

·~ ·~ ··~ ·~ Itt'!.~

7cUI Wllot

FY n ..... ,.,..

j5 ·~6,!'T455

10 110.151B1

--· •.~ ~~~9&JII

~ =·~ • G,!l!l"-:lll

" = J.5l!l lr.o,IIJU.!I

'"' 217,704.04 ,_ 314.079..,

= _, .. 11:1,710~·

= Hl<l.lll55:!

11.1)1.~ ll<!,ISHt

I'C'e-F .. I Fl' 2ote

•.~ ~

• 1,!111

··"'' ,_ "' ... ~

7,n;

·=

O.O!UW.Pil!liECT ~CHEDIAE OF li!R!GAMII/\1'10 "'-''I REVEIIUU NIOALl.OtATEO OW EX!'Eli.!UO!

w•• ..... >Do.;

n.=.m ~IU!Il.IZ

·- FY""Ien.""'-

"' !ltl,!r.a:U•J

"' II~,J-12.511 .. {7,n!!.05J ,. ..• "" (IU,D!IIUI)

... m•,!I'Jt••• , .. Pl!,a57.19i .. 15~~05)

·~,. (111l~.9ll 12!\ llli,U!I.Il)

tee'<. I<>D,JIU-1)

t1.lli1,76U5)

IJYCO'-'I'DI/efTfDflFI51:Al. 'r'IWl %IUD 2DII IIU!IG.\nOij All() U!.l W~TEn r<AlES

D...., E.!,., ...

Gl""'~' , m.uva 1-"<!1~

·~

~:;~~~s.i ~;%~]

n4,Jn.l4 112.l~

, .... ,.36

••

'"""" ·-IDEFICll)

f!O.S,o:!<l.;l!)

(~11,71!1.!>0)

(1\7,9!2.70) I~,J.<UII) {7;n5.00)

= ;:\".:;,;;::;:a:w ~,,!12""" · t1u.=,,

:lll10im ..... D•fdiQ ~·•n ~•rron=rlC.

•..lll!IJ~) ;pi&

• (1.~00 00} 1!119,!l1B.T•l

' (!1.53.0!!) l(!il,lOS-"'1

• (lll.OSJ • II.I!Jil..ll)

• ' 12."Q.ID) (117,110..11]

IJ,!l51~5) I(ZJ8,1lll.1:1) (~I• Ill Jp .. \.:1~1:21 1!53.1~1 I(GO.~j

• (1,<9t.l5) 1(1~ ... 1129)

• 11J>O!I42) 1(11l.l!Ulj

lf:>.•oo••l (!!lU1U1l

(1!1,!171.11) (l,ll11,l.ta.m)

'. _nz.m

=~ ~DJ.I9 n~.as.u.~.

1~7.~ 21~g.i

--==15 J.o;,:!:l!.tl 1-.li,DU·~ 12./Ul.~S

~

il,lDUI

IS!,:C!!.M 11l4,1tJUJ nun•a lll,l!t.Ul I.W.~lll

l11,017.JI

J!J,TII~I

~0.571..!il] r.J.ID,D51.'/IJ] (!lll,l-'2.~

(ICJ.~..!il) !111,llll~)

...,._F ... ""' -·--,__

= .. ~

'" 1,nt

·~· '"' "' "' •• ~··· ~ ..

F'l~l&

Dol'dll:l!• lotS«=!

·~-·-• nun; • "=· I !DS.llUl

'

' ~= • ·~ ClOO

' ~G .• ~ su::a.111J.i l1l7.1127

-· ,,_. ·~· ~""

!1115.c.51l.JI)

(!113.7115()

(117.5112.70) i!!l)tZ.Sl) (7,1llll!ij

= (1~1]

(lU.!11.a!) ('ojD,OSJ.7V) I~.J52.~1

(ICJ,~~.!l4)

1111,511.27)

__ , ·- A<lju>I.""""C

2.07"..0'~

0.00

••

..

-fl.....,ocl 0...,.!1_

11~~11

(C .. ,71U.OI

(117,1;112.7•) 1~9.:»>.511

{1.n~""' •• I1M,D51J:I1)

(Tit,B7\&.0j tJ•b)I.!IJ.79j

~~-=~ (!OJ,OSU•J f111.!!111.3l)

p .......

= -'''''l'liiil'i ""'~'"

h~~"''"" QoJ"" \I'D Ca•F~m<r!.o.Wio1Y,'tl

r.I""J..::i:ol,l/l] '"""'•YrumvcoiO~r

fjJU Goi<~.>W!l

<;:tro!SIJ!lae""""" C...lm<t .. hle~WD J.l..,joclUWO ~""'" yn~fiWCDIO~t lfh~c•w

, ..

DRAFT

17 IG7,Jll0.41

"~ """-F«:: 1115.'7 '·""" Hl'l.71~05

10H7 ~ 5lporo mon • d.MH1 10557 oro

II% '"' 107,,047

115..27 '-"" l~•.tlH5 11-UT <!,990 ~l'::l,:lOHO

n!;.l7 w-t t:UII.B~ t:S..l7 ~•a 111,7.!'118 ll5.l7 OS. 119,5U7.5!

Ul%i'f:f;_/~r?_f ""I.""'J9

• ·-··-·u,l!lll''.U:9.'17~-•~',

PROJECTED 2019 WATER RATES (NOT OFFICIAL)

<:ACii~ ~Ro.JEtT

SCiiElJULE OF lllll!GATiml AIIO ~~~lll.E\IEII'I.JE!i AIIO "~lCCATI'll ont O.PEIGE~ OV COrJ?O>!WTFOHFl;CAl YEAillOil

l0191RiliGAllO•I AIID r.\11 W~"TElliiATES

·,'ll9.'t!f.Jlio:-

:~~;;;;;;;:jj

>1<U->•<I;' (!CO,U:n.M) 10!i.~OC.05 )i;>.,l;ll-'~1

>".nu~ ~.71!.5.371 0.00

O.l~ =.H;o_a~ 11~11..:19) ..,.,M

lZP.Il2.79 (lS,OSU.Il) 4<iO,!oOL40 )ll,m!ilO)

·~-12011l IS.•1lA3) m,CUJ<l i9.!1ll&l) 1l<l,D10W (IC.~!i:Ut)

"' [1;6~!1:ifpr; ~~=m

if:~j~1"::ithco:·; !!1].5-1.5~1)

A•""" of Cf"'>:l::no "" Dtlo"'

··~ no'"'"' or

"" A:!)~l Atl,'uslmc1>tG

-~-:!..!7!'<m

11Gl.S.."-lll) '" ooo (10::0,..~·1

~~~OOlHi<) ... (8S.OO!.!;lj

-:'1t47.s.l5:!ijj;:'?:. ;~:uo-il;o:,;::;: ·:;:-o;oo 'c:"!~•7,s..n!l·

!lt:l."'I.C!] (1tlUJ1.tlfi) iS1.1llOO) (g_'"'"'' (11.l!S..l1J (0.11!~~)

000

!1fi<t5'-0.lD) 000 (1S1,..n.."!l)

11!.009!2( tlS.BO~ ~OJ 1:11.~-0.~11) p.:.o:;OM) (5.013.0") (5.M~~~~ ~~-""'-f£1) !0.~5<1)

11D.!>GJ..I1) ITD.!oiil41]

(OS.tn'l"..s:!) 000 o.nn (!5.=~1)

· pl1.5jS.!lt)"; ··. .;o.rn-~oc· •· ""-; ILP<l· ..

P<T.'-'S.Otl

, ....... ..

Chris DalhUstrom

From: Sent: To:

Cc:

Edward Lyons · Tuesday, August 07, 2018 2:07 PM John Mdnnes; Joshua N. Haggmarlc

· 'Nicholas Turner 'Tom Fayram'; Fray Crease; Kelley Dyer Ryan Drake; Paeter Garcia Janet Gingras

Agenda item X!i.IBl."l.

; Bob Mcdonald )';Chris Dahlstrom;

J; David Matson;

Subject: COMB; Proposed Meeting re: Cachuma Project I USSR Extraordinary Costs and Proposed Deficits Amortization on Monday, September lOth @ lO:OOam

Managers,

Reclamation's Rate Setting office staff will be at COMB Headquarters on Monday, September 1 o'" at 1 Dam to conduct a meeting to explain the Cachuma Project extraordinary costs and proposed deficits repayment schedule. The meeting is expected to last approximately two hours.

Please advise if this meeting time works with your respective schedules or if a representative from your team is available to attend in your place. Your response is requested by Friday, August 1 o'h

Available materials will be distributed when received for advanced review.

Thank you.

Edward Lyons Administrative Manager/CFO Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board 3301 Laurel Canyon Road Santa Barbara, CA 93105-2017 (805) 687-4D11 ext. 200 elvonsiGlcachuma-board.oro

1

TRUSTEES:

DIV!SJON 1 LOS OLIVOS H<~rlan J. 8.llrchardi

lJl\'lSlUN:! SC)LVAi"\C jeff Clay

Il!VlSIClN 3 SUJ.V ANC Kevin \\'al'ih

DJ\'lSIUN ·l SANTA YNI7. l\1idt.tel 1\urch.lrdi

Tf\ usn: r~ .. u-~LA n c; E !kul Jon:.

t":ENi 7.1\A!_ ,i,I;\\;":\GJ"o:H Chri_,:; D.1l1l-.!wll1

.July I 6. 20 I R

David Murillo, Regional Director, IYiiu-PaciJic Region

United States Bureau of Reclamation

2800 Cottage Way Sacramento. California 95825-1898

Federico Barajas. Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region

United Stales Bureau of Reclamation

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

Michael Jackson, Area tv!anagcr. South-Ccntrnl California Area Office


1243 N Street Fresno. California 93721-1813

Sent Via First Class and Electronic Mail: (

)

Re: Contract 175r-1802R for Water Service tl·om the Cachuma Project

Deur Messrs. Murillo. Barajas. and Jackson:

This letter is to follow-up on the severn! meetings that have taken place over the last year between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Santa Ynez River

Water Conservation District. Improvement District No.I (TD No.I) relating to the

Aprill4. I 996 Contract No. 175r-1802R between Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency l(w Water Service Ji·om the Cachuma Project (Master

Contract). which expires on September 30. 2020. For various reasons we have

discussed previously. the next water supply contract(s) for the Cachwmt Project should provide a more direct relationship between Reclamation and ID No.I. and we

arc requesting Reclamation to pursue that type of arrangement.

As a Cachuma l"vkmber Unit ("'Cf'v1U"") under the lv1astcr Cuntracl. ID No.1 as n

downstream agency hnlus a conlractual righl to I 0.3 I percent of the water supplies delivered Ji·om the Cachuma Project. Those supplies are critical to ID No.I 's water

resource portrOiin and ability In provide sufficient and reliahle relnil water service tn

domestic o.nd agricultural customers throughout our service area. However, for many

years und in many instUJlCLS. the liJc:k or a dir~ct contn.Jctual relationship between ID

No.I and Reclamation has substantially impaired our water rights and water supply operations.

An important example we have explained 10 Reclamation and the County is the ··n.c~~rvuir .'\1..:\.:UUHling .. u~cisiuns that h'-lYL" lll:nL/Itkd th~ four South ('nast c·rvt! Js

while providing no benditiO lD No.l. resulting in a clear inequity. We have written

P.(l. KO\ F;7 ~ -~h2'2 S:\C ;L;~~TU ~TRLLT. ~~_,\("-i'J :\ ·y:'~LZ. C.\ llJ~d_l ~_S(I5) b~~ (~ill:; .. FJ\ \: o.:;n_::;} (~R::-: ~(!(~\ • \"-/\·\'\'\1.S\F\\'D.(lJ·!(,

Messrs. Murillo, Barajas, and Jackson July 16.2018

several letters to Reclamation and the County, and we have mel with you and other Reclamation officials on numerous occasions to voice our serious concems with that matter.' Yet after years of asking for help. neither Reclamation nor the County has responded to 10 No.I and U1e issues

have not been resolved.

Another example has been playing out in relation to Article 3 of the Master Contract. While the express language of Article 3 provides that the County must submit the CMUs' annual Project water delivery request to Reclamation, the County has intercepted that process and intends to make its own decision Jur how Project water supplies are allocated to the CMUs. 10 No.I believes that the regional interests of the County arc important and should be considered. However, the County does not hold water rights in the Cachuma Project. does nDt pay for the Cachuma Project. and docs not purvey water to lD No.I or in any other capacity. 10 No.1 is the only party capable of adequately representing its own rights and interests in the Cachuma Project.

As reflected herein and in other e:--:amplcs, 10 No.I should have a direct contractual relationship with Reclamation for its Cachuma Project water supplies. An exclusionary two-party contract

between Reclamation and the County is no longer appropriate tor the Cachuma Project. particularly if administrative ease or convenience is the reason for sticking with the status quo. Without a more direct contractual relationship with Reclamation, concerns raised by 10 No.] will remain unheard nnd our \Vntcr rights and water supply interests \Viii continue to be marginalized.

We urge Reclamation to pursue one of the contractual arrangements that we have been discussing

with you, <Is outlined in lD No.I's letter dated December II. 2017. We look lurward to working with Reclamation. the County, and the other CMUs to dcwlop a modernized framework tur the Cachtm1a Project that provides a proper scat at the table for ID No.I as a Cachuma Member Unit.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or to further discuss any of these mutters. I can be reached at (805) 688-6015.

Sincerely.

/>·"' ~~:::?',;;;?"'-~-·-~ .;<_..;,..- -:::;:.Jy_;;: )

~-.?-~/ ·------

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager

cc: Pm"tcr Garcia. Legal Affairs and Policy !Vlanager Bill Luce. Bill Luce Cnnsulting. L.LC

1 Sl?c~ e.g .. ID Nn.l letters to Reel~m1atinn dated /\pril I()_ 2016. ivlay 30. :2017. nnd December

12.2017.

May 3, 2018

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

David Mmillo, Regional Director BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Mid-Pacific Regional Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 [email protected]

Somuel Bivins sb lvlns@d ow ney brcnd.com 916.520.5209 Direct 916.520.5609 Fax

Agenda Stem XU.C.1.

Downey Brand LLP 621 Ccp[tol Mcll, 18•h floor Sacramento, CA 9561-4 91 6.444.1 000 Main downeybrand.com

Michael Jackson, Area Manager BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

South-Central California Area Office 1243 N Street Fresno, CA 93721 mj [email protected]

Re: Request for Extension to Develop Revised Proposed Action for the Cachuma Project

Dear Messrs. Murillo and Jackson:

By this letter, .the Cachuma Conservation Release Board ("CCRB"), the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District ("SYRWCD"), and the SYR WCD Improvement District No. 1 ("ID No.1"), collectively referred to herein as the "Local Interests," request 1mtil July 19 to submit a revised proposed action for the Cachuma Project ("Project") for Reclamation to consider. The Local Interests are jointly developing a two-part proposal for consideration by Reclamation and NMFS that includes (I) flow elements supported by seasonal releases from Bradbury Dam, and (2) non-flow elements designed to increase steelhead production and improve habitat quality md availability in the watershed. As you know, the Local h1terests and Reclamation have been working intensely to analyze the flow-related impacts tl1at would occur under the Draft Biological Opinion ("Draft BiOp") that NMFS has issued for the Projecl Those analyses reveal that tl1e Draft BiOp will significmtly intensifY the effects of drought on listed steelhead and exacerbate problems with predation in tl1e lower Santa Ynez River, thus adversely modifying downstream habitat and increasing the potential for jeopardy. At the same time, the Draft BiOp will have severe impacts on the Local Interests' water supplies, and interfere with downstream water rights releases and various agreements between the Local Interests, Reclamation, md other entities.

The draft flow proposal recently transmitted by Reclamation to NMFS sought to address tl1ese issues. However, aJditional revisions are needed to conserve Project water supplies in a way that ensures benefits and protection to listed steelhead over multiple dry year periods while preserving water for human uses. We are pleased to advise you that the Local Interests and our consultants have already made significant progress toward development of a revised flow regime for the Cachuma Project. Since early April, we have had multiple joint working sessions to prepare a water release schedule from Bradbury Dam that reflect and account for important factors in the watershed. The process has been and continues to be collaborative and productive. Through tl1ese collaborative working sessions, we have reached agreement on numerous

DOWN!EYBRAND David Murillo, Regional Director Michael Jackson, Area Manager

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

May3, 2018 Page2

elements, which we believe will increase the biological benefits and improve ease of execution of our jointly developed flow regime as compared to both the Draft BiOp and Reclamation's recent draft flow proposal.

The Local Interests have made significant progress in developing a revised proposed action for the Cachuma Project that will improve steelhead population and habitat, conserve water supplies, and that is scientifically defensible. We are confident that we will be able to provide a revised proposed action by July 19, including the supporting analysis and justification that NMFS and Reclamation have requested. We propose to meet with Reclamation staff to review our progress by June 19, and to otherwise collaborate c!oselywitl1 Reclamation on the Local Interests' proposal before it is submitted to NMFS on July 31. We will also make our consultants available to Reclamation as needed for informal, interim progress reports on the status of our joint proposal, and for any meetings with NMFS to discuss the bases and effects of the joint proposal.

We look forward to working with Reclamation on this important task. Please let us know as soon as possible whether our request will be granted.

Very truly yours,

DO}YNE):,BRAN~ LLP : I / I '<'

;/'Yf~~:r~~-------·· !

Sam Bivins Counsel for CCRB

cc: Federico Barajas, USBR

SYRWCD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.I .': /")

( / ?

:r.,-;;,~;_._,_ [f:~:;~l .. "-"':1 /" .?/ "(fos .. (~' Paeter Garcia Counsel for ID No.1

DOWN~t;YBRAND

YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

*~ Ernest Conant Counsel for SYRWCD

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

IN ltEI'LY HEFE!{ TO: SCC-100 2,2, 1.06

Mr. Barry Thom Regional Administrator

Mid-Pacific Regional Oflice 2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, CA 95825-1898

JUN - 7 2013

National Marine Fisheries Service. West Coast Region 120 I N E Lloyd Boulevard, Suite I I 00 Portland, Oregon 97232-1274

Subject: Cachuma Project Consultation- Time Extension Accommodation Request

Dear Mr. Thom:

We appreciate your allcntion to the ongoing Cachuma Project Consultation. In follow-up to our discussions earlier this month, the local water user interests (local interests) have informed us via the enclosed ieller that they have made significant progress in developing a revised proposed action lor the Cachuma Project that will improve steel head population and habiwt. conserve water supplies, and that is scientilically defensible.

The Local Interests propose to meet with the Bureau of Reclamation staff to review their progress by June 19. 2018, which would also include the supporting analysis and justification that olll· respective stai'JS have requested. Reclamation would then work with the 1.-tJctd Interests to rellnc and submit a revised new proposal to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by July 31.2018.

Reclamation supports the Local Interests efforts and hereby request NMFS concurrence that our consultation period accommodate submission by Reclamation of a new proposal by July 31. 2018.

Ciivcn these recent developments, we expect to wilhdmw our existing proposed action.

I look forward to your response, nnd should you have any questions regarding this request, please !Gel li·ec to call me at 916-978-5000 or !Vlichacl Jackson at 559-'-187-SIIo.

Enclosure

Sincerely. r-, i' )~,.- .

{'--·'--" i '·

Dnvid CJ. [\!luri!lo Regional Director

Downey Branci/Cachuma l.t'Ctli inlcrcsis kllcr elated ~'lay 3. 2018

Michael Jackson U.S. Bureau ofReclamation 1243 N Street Fresno, California 93 721-1813

"" .,, I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ~/· "':,,(!' "'\ 1 National Oceanic and Atmpspheric Administration : lf!I.·.~i.t. :I NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE '" ~~r ~ West Coast Region "'"a,.r, · ,t-~ ... ~

1

: 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 n~o

, Long Beach, California 90802-4213

April19, 2018

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for Operation and Maintenance of the Cachurna Project in Santa Barbara County, California

Dear Mr. Jackson:

The purpose of this letter is to memorialize the date that NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) specified for issuing the final biological opinion (BiOp) regarding operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project. On April 17, 2018, NMFS and Reclamation met and mutually agreed that the subject BiOp would be issued to Reclamation on October 1, 2018. To this end, NMFS and Reclamation also agreed to meet during the week of August 13,2018, to assess progress toward finalizing the BiOp and whether the date for issuing the BiOp should be modified.

Should you have a question regarding the information contained in tl1is letter, please contact Darren Brumback at (562) 980-4060.

Sincerely, . I

\. ./' J\"·-( (f

·· Antho;1y P. Spina Chief. Soutl1em California Branch California Coastal Office

cc: David Hyatt, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Administrative File: 151422SWR2010PR00316

David G. Murillo U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage \Vay Sarrame111n, CaliFornia 95825-1898

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404-4731

June15,2018

Rc: Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation for operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project in Santa Barbara County, California

Dear Mr. i'vlurillo:

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service understands from your .June 7, 2018, letter that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will submit to NMFS by .July 31, 2018, a new proposed action concerning the operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project. This new proposed action would be the basis of a formal consultation under the U.S. Endangered Species AcL and would supersede the existing proposed action that resulted in the November 28, 2016, dral't biological opinion for operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project. As a result. we have terminated the consultation on the existing proposed action.

\Vc look l'orward to consulting l'ormally with Reclamation on the new proposed uction. Should you haven question regnrcling this letter, please contact Anthony Spina at (562) 980-4045.

Sincerely,

Bt!IT)' A. Thom Regional Administrator

cc: ~'lit: hac! Jackson, U.S. 13ureau of Reclamation i\dministrative lilc: 151422SWR2ill OPR00316

A!!IJ<HiHtlla U1l:em XBU.C.:t,'.

United States Department of the Interior

1:·: REPLY REF!:!'. Tl J:

SCC-1 00 2.2. 1.06

:\I r. Barry A. Thom Regional Administrmor \iational i\·!<Jrint! f-:'ishcri·.::s ScrYice

BUf( EAU OF REC'L-\l\!A TlON fdid-Pncific· Regionu! Office

2800 Cottage \Vay S~1cramcnto. CA. 9581j-J B9~

AUG - 1 2018

1201 NE Lloyd Boub·ard. Suite 1100 PortlmHL OR 97232-127.:.\

RCGEJi./ED

F'Fl 12 SO

. - --.-

Subject: Rcvis<:.:d Nc\Y Propn::;cd Action fi·1r Endangered Spccil's Ad ScL.'tion 7 Con:sultatic)n rur Opcratiun and i\laintcnanCe- r1r thc·-.-cachum~l Projccl in Santa Barbara Coumy. California -·· ., - .

Dear ,\lr. Tllllm:

rhank you for ~our !cJtcr d<Jtcd June 15.2018. whic-h'liinong-l:ither things accommoc!mcJ our time extension request to submit L1 llC\\- n-!\·ised prop·,t\s'C·~l.actioii (or the sul~jcct Cachunu1 Proj~cl consultation b~ .luly31.201S. ··

,-\s rcrer-2nccd in uur .June 7. 2018. lcn\:r. the local \\-arer:user interests (Locallnkrests_l have ckvclopcd the mtached revised proposed action (Rc\·isC'cl Pi\) that inc_ludcs supporting analysis ancljusti!~cation that our re-spective statTs rcquc-st~d atid-oth•.::r inrorml1tiqn.

The Bureau ofRec!nmatioii has rc\·ic\rccl'thc Rc\'isccl PA a11d bc:licve::; it has merit. Once you and your stnffha\'e rcvie\\-cd the Revised P/\. we- would like to meet \\-ith you uta mutually cnnvcnicrH date and time TO rt::\"i-2\\ the Re\·ised PA- \Yith you.

\Vc belie\\~ it \\Tlllld be helpful Cor the local intcrt:srs to participate in the obo\\.' noted mt:cting given thcj did the hcnv)-_. lifting in perfOrming the '!t:chnicnl annly:-;is und preparing the supporting information.

\\"e lool ron\·nrd to mcding with ynu and please f~~~ rrc:::c to C31! llll.' at 916-978-5000 0!" i\!ichacl.Jaclson Ol 559-487-5116.

Enclosure Rc\·i:;cd Pmposcd Action fiJr the l"achuma Project

Continued un ne.\t page.

Sincere I:.

\: -... \' ' \ \!'

!)"'·id G. ~lurillo Regionnl Director

. l'-'-.

, I, ,_' · .. _:._

cc·s Continued from previous page.

cc: Ms. Alccia Van Atia Assistant Regionall·\clminisrrator National fdarine Fisheries Service 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, C A 90802-4213

:Vir. i\llichael Jackson. P.E. Area Manager Bureau of Reclamation South-Central Calitornia Area Office 12~3 N Street FrcsncJ. CA 93 72 I

(each \\/enclosure)

Mr. Anthony Spina, National iVIarine Fisheries Service 501 West Ocean Boulevard. Suite 4200 Lon!,' Beach. C A 90802-4213

EXHiBiT A.- VVOHK PLAN

Project Title: Santa Ynez River Valley Basin-GSPs Planning and Preparation

Project Description:

This Work Plan is designed to complete tasks necessary to develop and prepare fully compliant

Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for the entire Santa Ynez River Valley Basin (Basin or SY Basin)

as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and Department of Water

Resources (DWR) GSP Regulations, by 2022. Three GSPs will be submitted for the three Groundwater

Sustainability Agency (GSA) groups established in the Basin (one GSP per GSA). The Final GSPs will be

submitted to DWR on behalf of each GSA under a SGMA compliant Coordination Agreement. This Work

Plan will be used to develop the three GSPs as further set forth herein. Each GSA represents a single

Management Area (MA). Each of these tasks are described in this Work Plan.

Category (a): Grant Administration

The Grantee will be responsible for administering this Grant with DWR. The point of contact is Mr.

William Buelow of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District. Administration of the Grant is

described below in Category (a) Task 1 through Task 3.

Task 1: Grant Project Management and Administration

Manage Grant agreement including Agreement execution and Amendment(s) (if necessary),

communication with DWR on a timely basis, and maintenance of project files related to implementation

of the grant agreement.

Category (a) Task 1 Deliverables

• Executed Grant Agreement. Amendment(s) (if necessary)

• Executed contract(s) with consultants

Task 2: Grant Invoicing

Prepare and submit invoices to DWR, track task progress and schedule, and manage contracts and

budgets associated with the Grant Agreement. The Grantee, or its designee, will administer and track

any contracts with consultants or other agencies that are necessary to complete tasks in the Work Plan

and compile the required invoice back-up information.


• Invoices and associated backup documentation

Task 3: Reporting

The Grantee will be responsible for compiling progress reports for submittal to DWR. The Grantee will

retain consultants as needed to prepare and submit quarterly progress reports, at a minimum and the

Final Grant Completion Report.

Santa Ynez River Valley Basin GSPs Planning and Preparation Exhibit A- Work Plan

Reports will meet generally accepted professional standards for technical reporting and the

requirements outlined in Exhibit F of this Agreement. Upon completion of this Work Plan, a final Grant

Completion Report will be prepared and submitted to DWR.


• Quarterly progress reports

• Interim project deliverable assessments and reports

• Final Project Close-out Report(s)

Category (b): GSPs Development Each GSA will submit a Final Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to DWR by January 31, 2022 as specified per SGMA. The GSPs shall be formatted, drafted, prepared, and completed as required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations. The Category (b) Tasks including Task 4 through Task 11.

Task 4: Stakeholder Communications and Engagement

This Scope of Work includes four tasks: 1) development of a Stakeholder Communication and

Engagement (C&E) Plan for each MA; 2) creation of a web-based C&E tool to facilitate the C&E Plans; 3)

develop and implement a schedule of C&E meetings for each MA; and 4) prepare plans for intra- and

inter-basin coordination.

Stakeholders will be actively engaged throughout development of the technical information for the

development of a GSP in their respective MA (Tasks 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10) as well as in establishing the

sustainable management criteria (Task 9) and then in the review and commenting on the appropriate

GSP document (Task 11).

Sub task 4.1 Stakeholder Communications and Engagement Plan

This task will develop C&E Plans for each MA. The C&E Plans will address effective communication and

engagement with multiple and varied stakeholders, methods and tools for communications and

engagement, and ways to conduct meaningful engagement for the development of the GSPs and

patticipation in the decision-making process. The C&E Plans will:

• Explain the GSAs decision-making process

• Identify opportunities for public engagement

• Describe public notification of meetings

• Discuss how public input and response will be used

• Provide a description of how each GSA encourages the active involvement of all local

stakeholders in the basin

• Provide information on established and future advisory committees

• Describe how the GSAs will inform the public about progress implementing its respective GSP,

including the status of projects and actions

• Describe methods for meeting notification, presentation, and tracking of discussions and actions

• Outline required notifications for the Draft GSP and adoption of the Final GSP for each MA

EA-2

Santa Ynez River Valley Basin GSPs Planning and Preparation

Subtask 4.1 Deliverables

• Stakeholder Communications and Engagement Plans (C&E Plans)

Subtask 4.2 C&E Tool Development

Exhibit A- Work Plan

The C&E tool can be developed for the three GSAs to contain a communications tracking system to

document outreach and engagement activities, compile mailing lists, and summarize communications

with stakeholders. Additional features of this C&E tool are listed below:

• Provide a repository to collect, store, and organize contact information about basin stakeholders

• Plan events, meetings, and send and document notices to stakeholders based upon their

identified interests

• Identify the interests and concerns of organizations and individual stakeholders

• Allow individuals to self-identify their interests in SGMA when they sign up as an interested

stakeholder

• Document all stakeholders invited to GSP development meetings, and their participation at

those meetings

• Document agendas for the meetings and post the meeting minutes following the meetings

• Produce summary reports of communication and engagement activities to meet SGMA

requirements


• A Technical Memorandum that describes the SGMA-ready C&E web tool with website and a

communications module that allows for scheduling, public notification, meeting agendas, and

meeting minutes for each of the three GSAs.

Sub task 4.3 GSA and Stakeholder Coordination Meetings

Subject to refinement during preparation of the C&E Plans, meetings will be scheduled in the respective

MAs throughout the process of developing and adopting the separate GSPs. It is estimated that the

three GSAs and three Advisory Committees will meet approximately 94 times over the four-year project,

with approximately 30 meetings scheduled during the third year. Approximately 14 meetings are

scoped to include use of a facilitator, if needed. Agendas and minutes will be prepared for each

meeting.

Subtask4.3 Deliverables

• Meeting notifications, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes

Subtask 4.4: Intra-Basin and Inter-Basin Coordination

The three GSAs in the Basin will prepare an intra-basin coordination agreement among themselves. As

necessary, an inter-basin coordination agreement will be developed between the EMA GSA and the

adjacent San Antonio Creek Valley Groundwater Basin GSA.

Subtask .:JA Deliverables

• Intra-basin Coordination Agreement

EA-3


• Intra-basin meeting agendas and meeting minutes

• Inter-basin Coordination Agreement- as needed

• Inter-basin meeting agendas and meeting minutes

Task 5: Develop, Populate, and Utilize Data Management System{s)


Proper management of information facilitates sound decision making, saving time and money. Pursuant

to these and other applicable requirements, either a single and integrated Data Management System

(DMS) will be prepared for the entire Basin, or separate DMSs will be prepared, one for each MA.

Sub task 5.1 Data Management Plan(s)

This task will be initiated with a meeting that includes key managerial and technical staff from each of

the GSAs and consultants.

The needs assessment will:

• Identify key questions that should be addressed prior to development of the DMS(s)

• Decide key data components/modules to be included in the DMS(s)

• Determine the appropriate type of database to be used based upon costs, utility, and

potential future SGMA-related activities

• Review the spatial and temporal gaps in available data sets and qualitatively estimate

uncertainty for required data

• Determine the required features and functionality to be included in the first version ofthe

DMS(s)

• Determine the level of user access for various project entities

• Assess the degree of effort to load existing or future data into the proposed DMS(s)

• Assess software, hosting, maintenance, and deployment requirements

The Data Management Plan(s) will address the following topics:

• Identification of data needs

• Data collection process

• Data review process

• Design and construction of the DMS(s)

• Population of the DMS(s)

• Data quality control

• Quarterly and annual updates to DMS(s)

• Data reporting


• Data Management Plan(s)

Subtask 5.2 OMS Development

The DMS(s) will contain a comprehensive relational database structure integrated with a Geographic

Information System (GIS) as well as an interactive, web-based mapping and graphing interface. Regional

or localized information can be visualized and the DMS(s) will be accessible via the internet.

EA-4

Santa Vnez River Valley Basin GSPs Planning and Preparation El!hibit A- Work Plan

OMS functions are designed to minimize the amount of effort needed by GSA staff to address questions

related to groundwater conditions in the Basin or within a MA. A populated web-based OMS allows

greater understanding, review, and refinement of the conceptual and simulated hydrogeologic

conditions needed to develop the three GSPs. It also facilitates direct production of tables, charts, and

graphs needed for analysis and for reporting to OWR as required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations.

The proposed OMS(s) will be developed to include a field data collector, data entry and upload tools, an

integrated web-based GIS viewer, GSP submittal tools, water budget analysis and viewing tools, a

groundwater modeling data adapter, and search and reporting functions with user permission control.

The proposed web-based OMS(s) could also be developed do the following:

• Integrate data from multiple sources including State and federal agencies

• Store, display, retrieve, and present groundwater data

• Integrate geographic and geohydrologic information

• Provide versatile reporting capability and flexible data download/upload functions

• Include a data formatter with interactive hydrograph/chart/table creation tools

• Interface with ArcGIS to support groundwater modeling efforts

• Provide streamlined data collection, data sharing, and GSP submittal capabilities

• Automate generation of materials for reporting

• Provide user-friendly web accessibility for stakeholders to upload and query specified

information

The DMS(s) will be compatible with the data management formats specified by DWR for monitoring and

reporting. The OMS(s) will protect against the loss of invaluable data by storing it in a standardized

format, in a single location with data backup, and on a secure server.

The OMS(s) will be designed to interface with the hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM) and

groundwater conditions sections of each GSP, as well as being expandable to support other GSP

components such as water budgets and regional or sub-regional groundwater modeling. The data

architecture of the DMS(s) will be compatible with the most common database server software

(Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, etc.) or in a standard geodatabase format.

In addition to supporting preparation of the three GSPs, the visualization and data transparency of the

OMS(s) will facilitate coordination and collaboration among agencies within the three GSAs and with

neighboring agencies in the San Antonio Creek Valley Basin as needed. Information can readily be

queried and provided for review or incorporation in regional SGMA efforts.


• A Technical Memorandum or Memoranda to describe functions of the web-based OMS(s).

Subtask 5.3 Data Compilation and Review Data from all sources will be converted into a standardized format with fields that are compatible with

the formatting protocol established for the DMS(s). To complete the data compilation portion of this

task, various activities can be undertaken, such as the following:

EA-5

Santa Ynez River Valley Basin GSPs Planning and Preparation Exhibit A- Work Plan

• Data requests to agencies, companies, landowners, and other stakeholders in the Basin

• Informational meetings with agencies, companies, landowners, and other stakeholders in the

Basin.

Following receipt of data, the GSAs will review the data and populate the DMS(s) with formatted data.

Due to the variability of the data types and sources, all data will be QC reviewed to verify the type of

data, quality of the original data, and the number of data sources being compiled for each type.


• A Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the data collected and sources thereof.

Task 6: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model(s) and Groundwater Conditions

The following sections provide a detailed description of how the GSAs intend to support the

development of a SGMA-compliant HCM for each MA. The groundwater monitoring activities included

in Task 6 pertain to the collection of groundwater data required to prepare each GSP. Groundwater

monitoring during the implementation phase of SGMA (2022-2042) is provided in Task 8.

Sub task 6.1: Hydragealagic Visualization Tao/

The scope of work for this task includes:

• Use the DMS(s) system and other technical data to approximate geologic layering and

populate the 3D tool

• Use the 3D tool to help display the subsurface geology of the Basin, including the extent of

folding of the aquifers, potential confining beds, and barriers to flow

• Use the 3D tool to characterize existing groundwater conditions in each part of the Basin

• Diagram pumping locations within each MA of the Basin

• identify potential storm water capture and other potential recharge areas

The 3D tool will also help inform the numerical groundwater model described in Subtask 7.2. The 3D

tool will be developed to include all three MAs in the Basin, specifically, the 3D tool will help generate

geologic cross-sections required for the HCMs, characterize water quality conditions, and inform the

numeric groundwater modeling processes as described in Subtask 7.2.

Subtask 6.1 Deliverables:

• A Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the 3D tool and providing technical

output data.

Subtask 6.2: Correlate Existing Groundwater Levels to Principal Aquifers

There are over 70 voluntary wells in the existing CASGEM network for the Basin. The objective of this

task is to review and categorize existing well logs and identify additional wells that could be suitable to

improve the monitoring network.

The work for this task will involve ongoing communication and coordination with well owners and will

include incorporating newly obtained well data into the DMS(s).

EA-6




• A Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the review and categorization of existing

well logs and identification of additional private wells that could be suitable to improve the

monitoring network. The technical analysis will also describe groundwater elevation data

demonstrating flow directions, lateral and vertical gradients, and regional pumping patterns,

including: groundwater elevation contour maps depicting the groundwater table or

potentiometric surface associated with the current seasonal high and seasonal low for each

principal aquifer within the Basin; and hydrographs depicting long-term groundwater

elevations, historical highs and lows, and hydraulic gradients between principal aquifers

Sub task 6.3 Potential New Monitoring Wells

Although it is anticipated that the groundwater monitoring network can be improved through efforts

described in Subtask 8.2, a needs assessment is proposed to evaluate whether additional monitoring

wells will be useful or needed in developing the GSPs for each MA.

A needs assessment will assist each GSA in determining whether additional monitoring wells will be

useful or needed in developing the GSPs for their respective MAs. Additional monitoring wells may be

considered in areas that would allow further assessment of potential groundwater exchanges between

the Buellton Uplands (in the CMA) and the Santa Rita Valley (in the WMA), and between the Santa Ynez

Upland (in the EMA) and the adjacent San Antonio Creek Valley Groundwater Basin. Potential new

monitoring wells would be proposed for construction in public right of ways or on lands owned by public

or private entities and new land purchases are not anticipated. Applicable well permitting, design, and

construction standards would be followed.

Upon completion, the wells would be incorporated into the CASGEM data system and the SY Basin

DMS(s).


• To the extent additional monitoring wells are proposed and pursued, Technical Memorandum

or Memoranda describing the well completion and permitting activities, including the

following information:

• Applicable CEQA documentation

• Monitoring Well construction bid documents, bidding results, and contractor selection

• Monitoring Well Completion Report(s), including a description of the drilling and construction,

lithologic logs, geophysical logs, as-builts, surveyed locations and elevations, well installation

and road encroachment permits, and Well Drillers Reports

Subtask 6.4: Water Quality Sampling

In addition to the ongoing water quality testing and monitoring efforts that currently exist in the Basin,

additional water quality samples will be collected from up to 28 selected monitoring wells within the

eastern portion of the WMA, the CMA and the EMA.

EA-7

Santa Ynez River Valley Basin GSPs Planning and Preparation · Exhibit A- Work Plan

Field sampling will be conducted to collect additional groundwater quality. The sampling efforts are

proposed to monitor for general minerals, drinking water metals, nitrates, boron, arsenic, and

hexavalent chromium.


• Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the additional groundwater quality

monitoring efforts and programs in support of the GSPs, including, without limitation,

sampling methods and protocols; a summary table of the water quality and analytical reports,

including well location maps; tables of well construction details; and principal aquifers that the

water quality samples represent.

Sub task 6.5: Develop Land Surface Subsidence Monitoring

It is proposed that each GSA will identify up to three benchmarks within its respective MA and perform a

review of the levelling data to evaluate historical trends and assess if subsidence has occurred.

The identified benchmark stations will be resurveyed by a California registered land surveyor and will

become the land surface subsidence monitoring network for the Basin. If changes in land surface

elevation are observed, the leveling survey data will be compared to the world wide tectonic GPS

network to assess whether the changes are local as the result of historic declines in groundwater levels

or due to tectonic activities.


• Technical Memorandum or Memoranda providing the historical levelling trend graphs with

the most recent benchmark survey results.

Sub task 6.6: Aquifer Testing

Data collected during aquifer tests can be used to assess aquifer geometries and groundwater

movement and will help to develop the HCMs as described in Task 6. The test information will be used

to develop and refine specific yield or storativity values for use in change of storage calculations.

Groundwater levels will continue to be monitored in both the pumping well and observation wells for a

period at least equal to the pumping duration.

Following the aquifer tests and upon receipt of the data, qualified consultants retained by the respective

GSAs will process the results and estimate values such as hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, specific

yield, and storativity.


• Aquifer Test Work Plan or Plans

• Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the processes for aquifer testing and

analysis in each MA, along with data developed under the Work Plan(s).

EA-8


Subtask 6. 7: Seismic/Resistivity Surve)IS

EJ<hibit A -111/orlc Plan

The scope of work is to evaluate the thickness and geometry of the bedrock notches in the EMA that are

filled with alluvium and to assess the general soil types using high resolution electrical resistivity surveys

at certain locations in the Basin. Seismic surveys may also be used to image areas where surface

infrastructure interferes with the electric resistivity signals. All data will be modeled into a layered

system to help identify the major sedimentary layers including the top of the bedrock and groundwater

surface. The locations will be determined once data compilation is completed. The geophysical data

obtained through the seismic/resistivity studies will be used in the EMA HCM as applicable.


• Technical Memorandum or Memoranda describing the methods, results, and interpretation of

surface geophysics used to characterize the aquifer conditions along profiles.

Subtask 6.8: Technical Report Summarizing HCM(s)

The GSAs will each prepare a technical report documenting the HCM for their respective Management

Area resulting from the compilation, review, and interpretation of groundwater basin information

evaluated in the subtasl<s described herein. These technical reports can be used to present information

to basin stakeholders, including the other respective GSAs in the Basin, and for briefing DWR. The HCM

for each MA will also support other GSP activities.


• Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Technical Memorandum for each MA.

Task 7: Water Budget Assessment and Forecasting Using the technical processes and data described herein, a projected water budget will be developed for

each MA to estimate future baseline conditions of supply, demand and aquifer response to GSP

implementation, potential uncertainties of projected water budget components.

Subtask 7.1: Develop Current and Historical Water Budgets by Management Area

Agriculture irrigation is by far the largest use of groundwater followed by domestic use and special use

(including parks, golf courses and schools). These estimates were prepared using District records for

water use within the District and an estimate of water use outside of the District based on studies

prepared by Santa Barbara County Water Agency.

The GSAs will quantify each component of the water budget as required by SGMA and the GSP

Regulations. The GSAs may also utilize the methodology described in DWR's Water Budget BMP

published in December of 2016 in establishing the historical and current values for each water budget

component in each MA for the Basin.

The following is a non-exclusive list of activities and information sources the GSAs may use in preparing

their own water budget components:

• Gather, compile, review and /or analyze available information on projected growth from local

EA-9


agencies in the Basin as well as Santa Barbara County.


• Characterize past, current, and projected future changes in land use and using this

information, calculate projected water uses. Additional land planning information may be

obtained from DWR's new online land use tool and from the Santa Barbara County Planning

and Development Department and City Planning Departments (Lompoc, Buellton and

Solvang).

• Obtain demand factors and estimates from water resources planning information gathered

from local agencies.


Prepare a Water Budget Technical Memorandum for each MA describing the following:

• Approach to completing the water budget for each MA

• Sources of information used in calculating water budget components

• Level of certainty with water budget calculations

• Water budget summarized in tables and graphics

• Areas of water budget uncertainty through use of groundwater model

• Future changes in water budget with alternative future scenarios (i.e. changes in land use,

changes in pumping, population growth, climate change, implementation of GSP management

actions and projects) using groundwater model

Subtask 7.2: Develop Numerical Groundwater Model or Coordinated Models for Forecasting

The scope of work consists of two steps, first to identify the proper modelling software tools and second

to prepare the model(s).

1. Model Selection. Each of the GSAs will review available groundwater modeling tools including

strengths, weaknesses, and relative cost for each in the development of its respective GSP and

the potential for interfacing with the modeling efforts and development of GSPs in the other

MAs. Each of the GSAs will determine which groundwater model will be used for preparing its

respective GSP, and collectively the GSAs will determine whether to pursue using a single and

integrated groundwater model for preparing the GSPs in the Basin. A Technical Memorandum or

Memoranda documenting this model consideration and selection process will be prepared.

2. Groundwater Model Development. Potential work to prepare the new groundwater model(s)

includes the following, without limitation, and subject to respective approvals of the GSAs:

o Use an existing numeric groundwater model layering to potentially extend across the

entire Basin as applicable. Subdivide the Paso Robles and Careaga formations into two

separate layers with low permeability layer between.

o Use soil textural database compiled in the DMSs and output from the 3D tool to create

model layers, including structure presented in the 3D tool.

o Create model grids to align with the MAs.

EA-10


o Input groundwater pumping and other technical data.


o If multiple models are developed, coordinate the model output and boundary conditions

for each MA's model as per the Basin Coordination Agreement and in conformance with

SGMA and the GSP Regulations.

3. Groundwater Model Simulations per MA.

o Select a historical base-period for model calibration and estimates of sustainable yield and

calibrate the model using groundwater levels from applicable wells.

o Input 50-year projected climate data (provided by DWR) along with water demand

forecasts from GSAs.

o Perform modeling scenarios as agreed on by the GSAs to assess various factors in

accordance with SGMA and the GSP Regulations.


• Calibrated groundwater model(s) covering the entire Basin and all three MAs.

• Technical Memorandum or Memoranda documenting the modeling selection processes and

describing development of the model(s) and the historical, current, and projected water

budgets for each MA.

Task 8: Development of Monitoring and Measurement Program(s)

Each GSP in the Basin will be required to describe the monitoring network for the respective MA with a

map showing the density of monitoring wells and a table describing the validity of each monitoring

point. The purpose of the network is to provide data to demonstrate groundwater occurrence, flow

direction, hydraulic gradients, changes in storage, and groundwater quality, among other factors. Data

collected from the network will be used to evaluate trends of sustainability indicators and measure

minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for each MA.

If improvement(s) to the monitoring network are identified, one or more proposals will be developed by

the applicable GSA(s) to acquire additional data for use in the GSP(s).

The GSAs will prepare a Monitoring and Measurement Plan (MMP) for each MA. Each MMP will include

a monitoring and measurement network for each sustainability indictor and will include the potential

use of existing and/or newly proposed monitoring wells.

The MMPs will address topics such as:

• Monitoring protocols, including technical standards and data collection methods

• Analytical methods of water quality parameters

• Location, rationale, and selection of representative monitoring sites, network density, and

monitoring frequency

• Network improvement plan, including annual assessment of the monitoring network for data

EA-11


gaps

• Stal<eholder outreach as per GSP Regulations

Task 8 Deliverables


• Technical Memoranda for each MA presenting and describing the adequacy of the existing

monitoring network and if needed, presents and describes proposals for developing additional

monitoring.

• Monitoring and Measurement plan consistent with DWR BMPs

Task 9: Develop Sustainable Management Criteria

Through a series of meetings and the stakeholder process, each GSA will perform the following tasks:

1) Review sustainability indicators by MA

2.) Outline sustainability goals

3) Set minimum thresholds

4) Define undesirable results and compare against current MA conditions

5) Define measurable objectives and interim milestones over a five-year period.

Development of sustainable management criteria will be iterative through discussion of sustainability

goals, definition of undesirable results, and identification of minimum thresholds and measurable

objectives.

Subtask 9.1: Describe Sustainability Goal

The three GSAs will each prepare a concise description of how sustainability within their respective MA

and throughout the SY Basin will be reached.

Sub task 9.2: Set Minimum Thresholds

The three GSAs will each set their own minimum thresholds for their respective MA. Minimum

thresholds are quantitative values representing points in the Basin that, when exceeded individually or

in aggregate, may cause undesirable results. The minimum threshold at any individual site is set after

considering the interests of beneficial uses and users of groundwater, land uses, and property interests

in the Basin.

Minimum thresholds for all applicable sustainability indicators will be supported by the six components

defined the GSP Regulations. The components are summarized as follows:

1. Descriptions of GSA and local agency information and criteria used to establish minimum thresholds.

2.. Descriptions of the relationship between minimum thresholds and avoidance of undesirable results.

3. Descriptions of how the minimum thresholds avoid causing undesirable results in adjacent basins, if applicable.

4. Descriptions of the minimum threshold's effects on beneficial uses and users of groundwater, land uses, and property interests.

EA-12.

Santa Ynez River Valley Basin

GSPs Planning and Preparation Exhibit A- Work Plan

5. Descriptions of applicable state, federal, or local standards relevant to the sustainability indicator and the associated minimum threshold measured at each representative monitoring site.

5. Explanations of how each minimum threshold will be quantitatively measured, consistent with the monitoring network requirements measured at each representative monitoring site.

Subtask 9.3 Define and Agree an Undesirable Results

Undesirable results are based on the minimum thresholds developed in Subtasl< 9.2. For each

undesirable result the following descriptions will be developed in accordance with SGMA and the GSP

Regulations:

1. The cause, or causes, of groundwater conditions in the respective MA and/or throughout the

Basin that would lead to undesirable results.

2. The criteria used to define undesirable results. The criteria shall be based on minimum threshold

exceedances. GSAs will define and describe the criteria that determine what number of

minimum threshold exceedances causes an undesirable result for each applicable sustainability

indicator.

3. The potential effects of the undesirable result on beneficial uses and users of groundwater.

Subtask 9.4 Set Measurable Objectives

The three GSAs will each establish measurable objectives which are quantitative goals that reflect

conditions in each MA as well as the Basin overall and allow the GSA to achieve its sustainability goals.

Measurable objectives will be determined using the same metrics as minimum thresholds.

Task 9 Deliverables

o Technical Memorandum for each MA presenting the sustainability goals, minimum thresholds

for all representative monitoring sites, undesirable results, measurable objectives and interim

milestones.

Task 10: Develop and Assess Projects and Management Actions

The following subtasks are proposed to be completed to Develop and Assess Projects and Management

Actions.

Subtask 10.11dentifv Projects and Actions Each GSA will develop a list of potential projects and management actions for consideration and further

evaluation. Examples of historically identified potential projects and management actions that could be

evaluated include, without limitation:

• Groundwater spreading basins and recovery well systems

• Water conservation programs

o Modification of concrete lined drainage channels to enhance recharge near Lompoc

• Agricultural field flooding

• Detention of fiood waters in creeks

EA-13


• Potential use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)


Other potential projects and management actions will likely be added to this list following completion of

earlier tasks.

Subtask 10.2 Prioritize Projects and Actions

Prioritization criteria will be developed the GSA in each MA. Prioritization criteria may include such

factors as:

• Capital Cost

• Operation and maintenance Cost

• Ease of Permitting

• Public Acceptance

• Effectiveness at Improving Groundwater Quality

• Effectiveness at Improving Groundwater Quantity

• Ease of Construction

Subtask 10.3 Evaluate and Select Projects and Actions

In addition to the factors above, potential projects and management actions will be evaluated within

each GSA, and potentially between the GSAs as applicable, according to technical feasibility,

environmental impact, and constructability.

Task 10 Deliverables

• Planning level Feasibility Report for each MA describing the identification and selection

process for potential projects and management actions.

Task 11: Groundwater Sustainability Plan Document

Each of the GSPs for the Basin will be prepared in accordance with applicable requirements.

Subtask 11.1 Develop Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Each GSA in the SY Basin will develop a complete GSP for its respective MA. The GSPs developed in the

SY Basin will be coordinated through an Intra-basin Coordination Agreement between the agencies,

based on the GSP Regulations. During the development of the GSPs, interim meetings will be scheduled

with DWR staff to review draft chapters and other content of the GSPs, and to seek input and

comments. Table 1 below shows the tasks described in this Work Plan to prepare the three GSPs for the

Basin compared to the SGMA GSP outline.

Sub task 11.2 Address Comments and Finalize Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Draft GSPs will be released for public review {90-day period). Upon receipt of public comments, the

respective GSAs will review the comments and potentially modify the Draft GSP as deemed necessary,

including documentation of how the comments were considered. Each of the Final GSPs will then be

considered for adoption and approval by the respective GSAs.

Task 11 Deliverables

EA-14


• Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plans


• A total of three Final GSP Documents with a record of how comments were considered.

EA-15


Table 1 - GSP Sections and Corresponding Scope of Work Tasks

ES 1.0 2.0

3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 A

2.1

2.2

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

Executive Summary .... Introduction Plan Area and Basin Setting Description of the Plan Area

. _SummaryofJuris~icti~nal Areas and Other Features. Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans Additional GSP Elements Notice and Communication Basin Setting Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions Water Budget Information Management Areas Sustainable Management Criteria Sustainability Goal Measurable Objectives Minimum Thresholds Undesirable Results Monitoring Network Projects and Management Actions Plan Implementation Estimate of GSP Implementation Costs Schedule for Implementation Annual Reporting Periodic Evaluations References and Technical Studies Appendices

EA-16


Task 11 Task 6, Task 11 Task 6, Task 11 Task 11 Task 11 Task 11 Task 11 Task4 Task 6 Subtask 6.1 Subtasks 6.1, 7.1 Subtask 7.1 Task 11 Task 9 Subtask 9.1 Subtask 9.4 Subtask 9.2 Subtask 9.3 Task 5, Task 8 Task 10 Task 11 Task 11 Task 11 Task 1 Task 3, Task 11 Task 11 Task 11

Budget Category

(a) Grant Administration

(b) GSP Development

EXHIBITC

SCHEDULE

End Date·

8/1/2018 3/30/2022

9/1/2018 1/30/2022

Exhibit B - Budget

ProjectTitle:S~ntaYnez River Valley Basi~: GSPs.Pianningancl Pre~aration .··

~~~~i~~~~~~c~l····oth~feo~f, .. , > •.••. , ........... .

. ,. ~.Qst~h~r~< • {J~~~t~f~!i• ,.,. '"·•.c

$0 $0 $290,000

$1,569,767

1. Sources of Other Local and Required Local cost share are the Agencies party to the Memoranda of Agreement for each repsective GSA in the Basin.

Agenda 6\!:em XHD.IE.1.

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONT~ ______ .. __

DECLARATION OF A QUORUM

BOARD MEETING Tuesday, August 7, 2018-9:30 a.m.

Coastal Hearing Room -Second Floor Joe Serna Jr. - Cal EPA Building

1001 I Street, Sacramento

Felicia Marcus, Chair; Steven Moore, Vice Chair; Tam M. Doduc, Member; Dorene D'Adamo, Member; E. Joaquin Esquivel, Member

BOARD MEETING Public comments on agenda items will be limited to 5 minutes or otherwise at the discretion of the Board Chair

PUBLIC FORUM

Any member of the public may address and ask questions of the Board relating to any matter within the State Water Resources Control Board's jurisdiction provided the matter is not on the agenda, or pending before the State Water Board or any California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

BOARD BUSINESS

1. The Board will consider adoption of the July 24, 2018 Board Meeting minutes.

UNCONTESTED ITEM* (Item 2)

*2. Consideration of a proposed Resolution to adopt a revised delegation of authority to the Delta Watermaster.

• Aoenda Item • Draft Resolution

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

3. Current Hydrologic Conditions.

4. Update on Emergency Water Conservation Regulation.

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

5. Consideration of a proposed Resolution establishing Part 3 to the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of CaliforniaBacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy; and the amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of CaliforniaBacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy.

o Agenda Item o D1·aft Resolution • Proposed Final PoliQL o Drait Staff Report • Draft Amendments/Provisions • YVritten Comments (were due on August 16, 2017 by 12 noon.)

• Response io Comments

State Water Resources Control Board • P.O. Box 100 • Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 • Fax: (916) 341-5620

INFORMATIONAL ITEM

6. Board Member Report.

CLOSED SESSION Closed Sessions are not open to the Public

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

The Board may meet in closed session to deliberate on procedural or substantive decisions to be reached in the proceeding to consider the joint Petition filed by the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to add three new points of diversion and/or points of rediversion of water to specified water right permits for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project associated with the California WaterFix Project. (This closed session is authorized under Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3).)

DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

The Board will meet in closed session to deliberate on a draft order on Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) of the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Project considering whether and how to modify the permits to: 1) protect public trust values and downstream water rights, and 2) act on petitions to change the place and purpose of use of those permits. (This closed session is authorized under Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3)).

IMPORTANT INFORMATIONII

Unless otherwise specified, submittal of written comments must be received by 12:00 p.m. on August 2. 201 B. and will not be accepted after that time.

Submittal of electronic Powerpoint presentations must be received by 12:00 p.m. on August 2. 201 B. and will not be accepted after that time.

Submittals are to be sent via e-mail to the Clerk to the Board at [email protected]. Please indicate in the subject line, OB/07/1 B BOARD MEETING -ITEM #(fill in balded subject from appropriate Item)." If you have questions about the agenda, contact the Cieri< to the Board at (916) 341-5600.

Agenda and items will be available electronically at: htto:l/www.waterboards.ca.gov/board infolcalendarlindex.shtml

*Items on the uncontested items calendar may be removed at the request of any Board member or person. If an item is removed from the uncontested items calendar, it will only be voted on at this meeting if the Board accepts the staff recommendation for tihe agenda item. Otherwise, the item will be continued to a subsequent board meeting to allow input by interested persons.

Video broadcast of meetings will be available at: httos:l/video.calepa.ca.gov/

For a map to our building, visit htto://WvVw.calepa.ca.qov/headquarters-sacramento/location/. For security purposes, all visitors are required to sign in and receive a badge prior to entering the building. Valid picture identification may be required due to the security level so please allow up to 15 minutes for this process. Individuals who require special accommodations are requested to contact the Clerk to the Board, (916) 341-5600.

State Water Resources Control Board • P.O. Box 100 • Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 • Fax: (916) 341-5620

Indian Wells (760) 568-2611

Irvine (949) 263-2600

Ontario (909) 989-8584

Riverside (951) 686-1450

Paeter E. Garcia (213) 787-2543 [email protected] File No. 18613-00007

Jeanine Townsend Clerk to the Board

l~lk BEST BEST & KR!rJEGJER ~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 617-8100 I Fax: (213) 617-7480 I www.bbldaw.com

December 9, 2016

State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

Sacramento (916) 325-11000

San Diego {619) 525-1300

Walnut Creelt (925) 977-'3300

Washington, DC (202) 785-0600

SENT VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL (COMMii:NTLETTERSialWATERBOARDS.CA.GOV)

Re: Comment Letter- Cachurna Project Draft Order In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) Held by the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Y nez River

Dear Ms. Townsend:

This firm represents the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. I (J.D. No. I) and these comments are submitted on behalf of J.D. No. 1 with respect to the Draft Order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on September 7, 2016 Amending Permits 11308 and 11310 held by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River (Draft Order). 1

J.D. No. I appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the Draft Order. With these comments, and for the many reasons set forth herein and in previous submittals, J.D. No. 1 opposes the State Board's proposed adoption of Alternative 5C and respectfully requests the State Board to incorporate the comments and recommendations below in fashioning any Final Order in this matter.

I. Background

I.D. No. l 's water service area encompasses a portion of the Santa Ynez River watershed closest to and downstream of Lake Cachuma and Bradbury Dam. One of J.D. No. 1 's primary

1 Previously, I. D. No. I and the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District (Parent District) have submitted numerous comments, testimony, briefing, and related materials to the State Board and have participated actively in hearing proceedings conceming the State Board's consideration of modifications to Reclamation's Penn its] 1308 and I I 3 I 0 to protect public trust values and downstream water rights on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam (the Cachuma Project). The previous submittals by I. D. No. I and the Parent District are expressly incorporated into this comment letter.

I 86 !3.00007\29421527.1

BEST BEST & KRIEGER 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk State Water Resources Control Board December 9, 2016 Page 2

functions is to protect its downstream water rights and, as a participating agency in the Parent District/ its interests in the preservation of all water rights of landowners and residents in and to the use of Santa Ynez River water below Bradbury Darn, including groundwater supplies and water released from Lake Cachuma to satisfy priority downstream water rights. Because J.D. No. I is a downstream interest, and the Parent District is the responsible agency for placing orders with Reclamation for downstream water rights releases in accordance with State Board Order WR 73-37, as amended by Order WR 89-18, J.D. No. I is reliant on those water rights releases for its licensed appropriative supplies. In addition to its appropriative water rights issued by the State Board to serve water within its service area, LD. No. 1 is a Cachuma Project Member Unit and a direct beneficiary of contractual water entitlement from the Cachuma Project pursuant to Contract No. I75r-1802R, which rights and benefits are preserved, protected and secured through a contract with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency.

In 1959, the Parent District formed J.D. No. 1 as a separate and distinct agency pnrsuant to Sections 74000 and 75000 of the California Water Code, with its primary responsibility to serve water to domestic, commercial, institutional, and agricultural water customers within its service area. As indicated above, J.D. No. 1 is a Cachuma Project Member Unit and retains a contractual right to receive water service from Reclamation pursuant to Contract No. I75r-l802R and the Cachuma Project Member Unit Contract with the County of Santa Barbara for 10.31 percent of the Cachuma Project's yield, which is about 40 percent of LD. No. l 's annual water supply. In addition, J.D. No. l has appropriative water right licenses issued by the State Board to divert underflow of the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam, which water is made available through downstream water rights releases that are required pursuant to WR 73-37, as amended by WR 89-18.

In WR 94-5, the State Board ordered Reclamation to submit reports or data compilations developed pursuant to a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (1994 MOUi to address and resolve outstanding fish and fish habitat issues related to the portion of the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam. (WR 94-5, Finding Nos. 10 & 11, Order No. 3(b).) The Board also

2 The Parent District was formed in 1939 to protect the water rights and supplies of its landowners and residents. Its boundaries include most of the lands within Lhe watershed downstream of Lake Cachuma. The water rights of the Parent District's constituents are not before the State Board. however, the State Board and its predecessor have long recognized that Cachuma Project operations can have adverse impacts on downstream water rights and that such rights must be protected, including 1.0. No. 1 's rights. (See, e.g., D-886, pp. 29, 33; D-1486, p. 15, fu. 11.) Accordingly, the Parent District historically has been involved in Cachuma Project proceedings before the State Board.

j In addition to Reclamation and representatives for all the downstream water right interests, including the City of Lompoc, the Cachuma Member Units (Member Units), the California Department ofFish and Game, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were parties to the 1994 MOU. (WR 94-5, Finding No. 11.)

18613.00007\29421527.1

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk

B l\\l_J lit'& uufK".

BEST BlEST & Kru:JEGJER 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW

State Water Resources Control Board December 9, 2016 Page 3

ordered Reclamation to submit information developed and conclusions reached during negotiations among the City of Lompoc and the Cachuma Member Units regarding water quantity and quality issues related to the Lompoc Plain. (WR 94-5, Finding No. 15, Order No. 3(d).)

As directed by WR 94-5, the pmties to the 1994 MOU conducted studies and worked together to develop and implement a Fish Management Plan (FMP). The FMP protects and provides habitat enhancements for steelhead/rainbow trout4 in the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam through a combination of measures including modifications to reservoir operations and releases offish surcharge account water stored behind the Dam in Lake Cachuma. In 1997, during development of the FMP, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Southern California Evolutionary Significant Unit of steelhead as an endangered species under the federal ESA. The parties to the 1994 MOU worked with NMFS to develop a Biological Opinion (BO), issued in September 2000, that provides for steelhead protection consistent with the FMP. The FMP, which was first presented to the State Board in 1999 and finalized in 2000, provides for water releases below Bradbury Dam as described in Alternative 3C of the State Board's 2011 Final EIR for the Cachuma Project.

The release regime provided for in the FMP and the 2000 BO {Alternative 3C) also fom1ed the basis for negotiations among do'>.'TlStream water right interests and the Cachuma Conservation Release Board (CCRB) representing the south coast Cachuma Member Units relating to resolution of outstanding water quantity and quality issues downstream of Bradbury Dam. The compromise reached by these various interests is set forth in the Settlement Agreement between CCRB, the Parent District, J.D. No. I, and the City of Lompoc, relating to operation of the Cachuma Project, dated December 17, 2002 (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement is the first and only time since proceedings commenced before the State Board that all parties - including Reclamation, the Cachuma Member Units, and all downstream interests - agreed on a mechanism for operation of the Cachuma Project that protects downstream water right interests and is consistent with the FMP and 2000 BO protections for steelhead and other public trust resources. Importantly, the Settlement Agreement is supported by extensive studies, hydrologic modeling, and negotiations that took place over several years to reach historic resolution among the parties for the protection of public trust resources and downstream water rights. The Settlement Agreement and the flow regime contained therein was

-<~The Draft Order states: "The species Oncorhynchus mykiss includes both rainbow trout and steelhead. Fish that exhibit a non-anadromous resident life history are referred to as rainbow trout and fish that exhibit an anadromous migratOl)' life history are referred to as steelhe<Jd." (See, e.g., Draft Order, pp. 40-41.) For purposes of this comment letter, references herein to steelheod mily apply to steelhead and/or resident rainbow trout as applicable.

18613.00007\29<12152.7.1

l~lk BEST BEST & IOOEGER ~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


subject to peer-review and thorough cross-examination in the State Board hearings for the Cachuma Project.

The Draft Order accepts the proposed minor modifications to WR 89-18 and implementation of the Settlement Agreement, which complies and is consistent with one of the key project objectives identified by the State Board, i.e., "the maintenance of percolation of water from the stream channel as such percolation would occur from unregulated flow, in order that the operation of the project shall not reduce natural recharge of groundwater from the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam." (2nd RDEIR, pp. 1.0-2, 3.0-l.). Subject to the comments set forth herein, I.D. No. I supports the Draft Order's acceptance of the minor modifications to WR 89-18 and implementation of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, I.D. No. I joins in the comments on the Draft Order submitted by the Parent District.

II. Summary of Comments and Recommendations

The Draft Order's selection of Alternative 5C is not legally or scientifically supportable. As explained in greater detail below, the proposal to release more water from Cachuma Project water supplies beyond Alternative 3C during wet and above normal years for the purpose of restoring steelhead below Bradbury Dam to good condition is not supported by substantial evidence. To the contrary, substantial evidence demonstrates that increased flows under Alternative 5C during such years will increase theproliferation of steelhead predators such as bass and beavers, cause unknown and potentially harmful impacts to water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels and, as conceded by the Draft Order, result in only speculative benefits to the steelhead, at best.

Despite the speculative and untested benefits to steelhead from increased flows, Alternative 5C will have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on the public interest by substantially diminishing local water supplies and rendering them less reliable. Previous written comments submitted by I.D. No. I and the Parent District identify that the State Board has not adequately analyzed the impacts of Alternative SC on water quality and quantity downstream of Bradbury Dam, specifically including potential impacts on the Above Narrows Account {ANA). In this regard, the Parent District and I.D. No. I provided detailed modeling runs of the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model (SYRHM) quantifying, among other adverse impacts, the additional loss of ANA credits that will result from implementation of Alternative SC in contrast to Altemative 3C, during drought periods.5 Nevertheless, the State Board failed to actually quantify the reduction of ANA releases or analyze the potential management implications of

5 See, e.g., Parent District comment letter dated September 28, 2007 regarding the Revised Draft EIR for the Cachuma Project, pp. 15-18.

l8613.00007\29il21527.1

I &ilk BEST BEST&-KRIEGER~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


such reductions, nor has the State Board analyzed or determined based on substantial evidence whether such reductions are consistent with all of the project objectives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).)

Furthermore, as discussed below, Alternative 5C will not avoid or Jessen significant impacts to fishery resources in any way that is not already accomplished by Alternative 3C. Alternatives that do not avoid or lessen significant impacts caused by the proposed project should not be considered. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) In addition to other fishery comments provided herein, I. D. No. 1 concurs with the Parent District and CCRB that the Draft Order fails to address or account for substantial evidence in the record regarding all lifestages and habitat relationships of steelhead in the Lower Santa Y nez River and fails to account for habitat bottlenecks in selecting Alternative 5C. Specifically, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that any benefits to stee!head associated with Alternative 5C (compared to 3C) during spawning and fry rearing lifestages are negated by limited habitat availability during the juvenile lifestage prior to becoming adults. Thus, the State Board has ignored substantial evidence that Alternative 5C would not be expected to increase adult populations relative to Alternative 3C. LD. No. I also concurs with and incorporates CCRB's comments that the Draft Order ignores substantial evidence of harmful interactions between individually benefited species such as resident bass and steelhead that result from additional higher flows under Alternative 5C. The administrative record is clear that bass prey on fry and juvenile steel head, and that increased bass populations will increase the rates of predation on those steelhead life stages. In other words, any purported benefit from higher flows for stee!head are likely negated by the benefits provided to the bass population. However, in selecting Alternative 5C, the Draft Order has ignored substantial evidence regarding harmful species interactions (e.g., predation) resulting from a higher artificial flow regime in the Lower Santa Ynez River. As further set forth below, other biology comments set forth in the comment Jetter on the Draft Order submitted by CCRB are incorporated herein.

From a local water supply standpoint, implementation of Alternative 5C will unjustifiably create a permanent regulatory drought condition for local water agencies. Under Alternative 5C, Cachuma Project water supplies refilling the reservoir in wetter years will now be released instead of being retained to accommodate water supply needs of the public in future dry years. Fmiher, as explained below, the State Board has not ac!mowledged the true scope of water supply impacts for purposes of the Draft Order because the estimated water supply costs do not account for the actual water supply conditions associated with the current drought and other factors.

As a result, the Draft Order does not and cannot undertake a proper balancing supported by substantial evidence regarding the needs of the species in comparison to the needs and public interest for an adequate and reliable water supply. Thus, the balancing discussion in the Draft I 36! 3.00007\29421527. I

l~l:k. BEST BEST & lffimGER~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


Order does not comport with the National Audubon case (below), the public trust doctrine, and other applicable law. The Draft Order is also inconsistent with the "reasonable use" requirement of Article X Section 2 of the California Constitution by requiring substantial additional releases of Cachuma Project water from Bradbury Dam based on benefits to steelhead that are speculative and unsupported in the record. The California Constitution does not equate beneficial use with reasonable use (Joslin v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 132, 143; People ex rei. State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Forni (I 976) 54 Cal.App.3d 743), and prohibits unreasonable and wasteful uses of water. (Article X, § 2; see also, Water Code §§ 100, 275; United Stares v. Gerlach Live Srock Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 725, 751; Peabodv v. Citv of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal. 2d 351.)

As explained herein and in written comments, testimony, and briefs previously submitted by I. D. No. I, the Parent District, and CCRB, Alternative SC would result in greater significant unavoidable impacts to water supplies than Alternative 3C, yet the purported benefits of Alternative SC for steelhead are not supported by substantial evidence or a complete record, as the Draft Order aclmowledges. Thus, particularly when compared to Alternative 3C, Alternative SC is not reasonable under California law6 and should be rejected in favor of Alternative 3C which is identified in the 201 I Final EIR as the environmentally superior alternative under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For similar reasons, the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations is not adequately supported. Among other shortfalls, the Draft Order's assertion that I.D. No. I and the other Cachuma Member Units can find alternative water sources is speculative, unrealistic, and fails to adequately evaluate the difficulty and environmental impacts associated with obtaining such alternative supplies.

I.D. No. I agrees with the conclusion reached in the Final EIR that Alternative 3C is the environmentally superior alternative, and still supports continued implementation of Alternative 3C, including the proposed minor modifications to WR 89- I 8 presented by Reclamation in the technical amendments in Exhibit "C" to the Settlement Agreement. Furthermore, before

6 Courts have not reallocated water from consumptive uses to public trust uses without first 'finding that the reallocaled water was being wasted or used unreasonably. {See, e.g., Joslin v. Marh1 Municipal Water Dist. (1967) 67 C.2d 132; lmoeriallrrigatian Dis!. v. SWRCB ( 1990) 225 Cai.App.3d 548; Cal Trout. Inc. v. SWRCB (1989) 207 Cai.App.3d 585.) In making allocation decisions, the State \Vater Board is charged with balancing the interests of competing water users suppmted by factual analysis. (See U.S. v. SWRCB (1986) 182 Cai.App.3d 82.) This includes consideration of"all factors involved." (Tulare Irrigation Dfsr. v. Lindsav-Srrathmore Dist. (1935) 3 C.1d 489.) In its Draft Order, the State Board describes a public trust analysis requiring higher release rates of water from the Cachuma Project without properly determining whether such water is currently being wasted or put to unreasonable use. In the nbsence of any such findings, the State Board should refruin from arbitrarily rendering Elny decision that effectively reallocates water on the unsubst[lntiated implication that the opewtion of the Cachuma Project constitutes a waste or unreasonable use of water.

18613.00007\29421527.1

1111k BEST BEST & KruEGER~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


certifying the Final EIR7 and issuing the Final Order, the State Board must consider and evaluate certain relevant information that has become apparent since the Final EIR hearing in 2012 to ensure a proper balancing is conducted in accordance with state law:

I. The drought from 2012 to present (5+ years) is worse than the ciitical drought period that is addressed in the Draft Order (1947-1951, 5 years). The result is that actual impacts on Cachuma Project water supply (shortages) have been underestimated because new and actual critical drought conditions were not considered in the Draft Order.

2. One component of Alternative 3C, the 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow target at Ali sal Bridge in the year after a spill, should be removed from the proposed project operations because there is no biological benefit of releasing additional water in the year after a spill, particularly if the year after the spill is dry.

As noted herein, I.D. No. 1 respectfully requests that the State Board adopt Alternative 3C. However, if the State Board selects Altemative 5C and requires additional studies, the following terms be added to the Permits:

A. Until the studies listed in the Draft Order are completed and the benefits of Alternative 5C flows are proven, the releases required under Alternative 5C, Table 2 will not be triggered until inflows into Cachuma Reservoir are greater than 70,000 acre-feet (instead of33,707 acre-feet). 8

B. The 1.5 cfs flow target requirement at Alisal Bridge in the year after a spill is suspended until the studies of Alternative 5C target flows and flowhabitat-species relationships are completed and the benefits of this flow requirement is proven. The 1.5 cfs flow target will still apply in the year of a spill and may be superseded by a higher flow target if the water year after the spill year is above normal.

7 Under CEQA, I.D .. No. 1 has the right to submit comments and evidence until the FinC~I EIR is certified. (See, e.g., Galante Vinevards v. Nfonterev Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cai.App.4th 1109, I 121 [ .. Any party may bring an action [under CEQA] if it has raised an objection to the adequacy of an EIR prior to certification."]; see also, Pub. Res. Code§ 21167.6(e)(7) [Lidministrative record in CEQA action includes .. all written evidence or coJTespondence submitted to . .. the respondent public agency with respect to compliance with this division or with respect to the project."]; Pub. Res. Code§ 21177 [alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA may be brought prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination].)

8 Please see additional informt~tion in the Conclusion section below.

I &61 3.00007\2942 J 527.1

l~lk BEST BEST & lillmGER.3

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


Alternatively, if the 1.5 cfs flow requirement at Alisal Bridge in the year after a spill is not suspended, the effects ofthis requirement should be studied as part of the further evaluation of the Alternative 5C target flows.

Furthermore, as reflected in comments submitted by other parties, the Draft Order should be amended to expressly allow the active participation by !.D. No. I in the development and implementation of any additional studied ordered by the State Board in relation to the Cachuma Project.

III. Additional Comments

1. Biological Benefits from Increased Flows Under Alternative SC and For 1.5 CFS at Alisal Bridge in the Year After a Spill Have Not Been Demonstrated with Substantial Evidence and Are Admitted to be Possibly Detrimental

The Draft Order's determination that the flow targets in Table 2 (Alternative 5C flows in above-nonnal and wet years) and the 1.5 cfs flow target at Alisal Bridge in a year after a spill are necessary to help restore steelhead below Bradbury Dam to good condition are not supported by substantial evidence. As further set forth below, the Draft Order repeatedly aclmowledges that the purported benefits of Alternative 5C flows are unlmown and based on an incomplete record, and that Alternative 5C flows may result in hannful impacts to the steelhead population and its habitat.

a. The Record Does Not Show That Simply Increasing Flows in the Reaches Below Bradbury Dam Willlmprove Steelhead Populations and Habitat

The Draft Order is based upon the unsupported assumption that simply increasing instream flow releases to the Lower Santa Ynez River will improve habitat functions sufficiently to produce a meaningful benefit to steelhead and critical habitat. These assumptions are inaccurate.

The geomorphic conditions and habitat functions of the main stem river downstream of Bradbury Dam cannot be made suitable for steelhead simply through the release of more water through the dam. For example, water temperature regimes in the lower river are elevated during the summer and riparian vegetation is inadequate or not biologically beneficial in some areas. Simply releasing more water will not improve these conditions and may, in fact, lead to worse conditions for the species.

As described below, releasing more water per implementation of the !low regime in Alternative 5C/Table 2 is likely to adversely affect steelhead by increasing the number of non-

t 8613.00007\19421527.1

llHIK BEST BEST & Kl!u:JEG!EIIl ~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


to continue monitoring target flows at the Highway I 54 Bridge by way of an updated determination of riparian losses.

b. Target Flows At The Hig]Jway !54 Bridge Are Already Accurately Monitored By Determination of Seasonal Losses

Reclamation monitors and manages releases from Bradbury Dam to meet target flows using methodology and monitoring plan developed by Stetson Engineers. (NMFS, Response to Transmittal of Bureau of Reclamation's New Methodology for Monitoring Required Flow Rates at the Highway !54 Bridge (November 16, 2004).) The monitoring plan prescribes the necessary releases from the dam, while accounting for losses and inflows in the Highway I 54 Reach, to meet reach target flow.

NMFS approved this method in 2004, and Reclamation has implemented it. (See id.) In 2010, Stetson Engineers updated the methodology for determining flow at the Highway !54 Bridge, accounting for increased losses associated with increased riparian vegetation. Reclamation has been operating under the updated methods since 2010. Nothing in the Draft Order explains why the current method is insufficient for monitoring purposes. T11e State Board's decision to require Reclamation to take inaccurate physical measurements at a point on the river to which it has no access is especially tmsuitable in light of Reclamation's current monitoring methodology. The State Board should amend the Draft Order to correct this error by keeping the existing monitoring system in place.

IV. Conclusion I Recommendations

!.D. No. I has been and remains a committed partner with Reclamation, the State Board, the Parent District, CCRB, and various other state and local agencies to protect, preserve, and develop steelhead and steelhead habitat in the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam. However, as the above comments signify, there is no substantial evidence that the selection of Alternative 5C and other measures in the Draft Order establishes a proper balancing of public trust resources in accordance with applicable Jaw.

Although the issues affecting the Santa Y nez River and the protection of steelhead are complex, the Draft Order contains legal, factual, and scientific shortcomings, particularly in its selection of Alternative 5C. As such, ID No. 1 requests the State Board to adopt Alternative 3C with its supportable findings and conclusions and require Reclamation (with the full participation of affected agencies) to complete the studies necessary to evaluate and determine actual, measurable, and scientifically supportable benefits for steelhead in the Santa Y nez River.

1B613.00007\29421527 .I

II~ IX BEST BEST & KRIEGER~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


The Draft Order aclmowledges that it is unkoown whether the increased flows in the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam under Alternative 5C will actually benefit steelhead. (See, e.g., Draft Order, p. 82.) It also admits that higher flows under Alternative 5C may actually harm steelhead, and that further studies are needed to evaluate that possibility_ (See, e.g., Draft Order, pp. 65-67.) At the same time, however, the Draft Order fails to acknowledge that there will be greater water supply impacts associated with implementing the Alternative 5C/Table 2 flows than those assumed in the Draft Order. Nevertheless, in the event the State Board selects Alternative 5C and orders additional studies, LD. No. 1 respectfully requests that terms A and B be added as follows:

A. Until the studies listed in the Draft Order are completed and the benefits of Alternative 5C flows are proven, the releases required under Alternative 5C, Table 2 will not be triggered until inflows into Cachuma Reservoir are greater than 70,000 acre-feet (instead of 33,707 acre-feet).

B. The 1.5 cfs flow target requirement at Alisal Bridge in the year after a spill is suspended until the studies of Alternative 5C target flows and flowhabitat-species relationships are completed and the benefits of this flow requirement is proven. The L5 cfs flow target will still apply in the year of a spill and be superseded by a higher flow targets if the water year after the spill year is above normal.

Alternatively, if the !.5 cfs flow requirement at Alisal Bridge in the year after a spill is not suspended, the effects of this requirement should be studied as part of the further evaluation of the Alternative 5C target flows.

As part of an attempt to balance water supply impacts with additional releases under Alternative 5C, a higher trigger can be used to switch from Table 1 to Table 2 in the Draft Order. Please refer to Attachment A hereto, which shows a modeling sensitivity analysis of Alternative 5C using a Lake Cachuma inflow trigger of 70,000 acre-feet instead of 33,707 acre-feeL The proposed trigger of 70,000 acre-feet represents the average inflow to Lalce Cachuma for the hydrologic period 1918-1993 _ The modeling results for this new sensitivity scenario for Alternative 5C show very similar conditions for both downstream flows and for downstrean1 water rights releases. However, the sensitivity scenario using a trigger of 70,000 acre-feet instead of 33,707 acre-feet shows many fewer shortages in Cachuma Project water supplies to the Cachuma Member Units during critical droughts.

Based on the seven years that the Alisal flow target of 1.5 cfs has already been in effect (water years 2005-2009 and 2011-2012), the !.5 cfs flow target requirement at Alisal Bridge in the year after a spill should be suspended until the studies of Alternative 5C target flows and

1861 ].00007\29421 527.1

~~lk BEST BEST & KRmGER~

ATTORNEYS AT LAW


flow-habitat-species relationships are completed and the benefits to steelhead, if any, are detem1ined based on substantial evidence.

Consistent with the foregoing, !.D. No. supports continued implementation of Alternative 3C including the minor modifications 89-18 presented by Reclamation in the technical an1endments in Exhibit "C" to elSett~ne1nt Agreement. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

submitted,

Paeter E. Garcia of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

Enclosure

cc: Cachuma Project Hearing Service List (September 7, 20 16)

1861 3.00007•.29•121 527.1

Water Boards

State Water Resources Control Board

October 12,2016

VIA ELECTRONIC EMAIL

TO: CURRENT SERVICE LIST

EXTENSION OF COMMENT DEADLINE ON THE DRAFT ORDER AMENDING THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S WATER RIGHT PERMITS FOR THE CACHUMA PROJECT AND DRAFT AMENDED PERMITS 11308 AND 11310.

On September 7, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) released a Draft Order Amending the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Rights for the Cachuma Project (Draft Order). The cover letter for the Draft Order set a deadline for written comments of Noon, October 25, 2016. Subsequently, the State Water Board received five requests to extend the comment period that in general indicate that the complexity of the hydrological and biological technical issues and the size of the supporting administrative record requires additional time to adequately prepare comments.

The State Water Board has reviewed the requests and is granting a 45-day extension of the comment deadline. In order to be fully considered, written comments on the Draft Order must be received by the State Water Board by Noon, December 9, 2016.

Also enclosed are the draft amended permits 11308 and 11310 described by the Draft Order, if the State Water Board adopts the order at a future Board meeting. Please review the terms and conditions of the Draft Order and draft permits carefully for accuracy with the evidentiary record. Written comments are to be addressed and submitted to:


State Water Resources Control Board PO Box 100

Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

You may also submit your comments to Ms. Townsend by fax at (916) 341-5620, by email at [email protected], or by hand delivery to the following location:

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board Executive Office

State Water Resources Control Board CaiEPA Headquarters

1001 "I" Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

'··' .,.

Cachuma Project Hearing October 12, 2016

-2-

Couriers delivering comments must check in with lobby security and have them contact the Executive Office on the 24th floor at (916) 341-5600.

Please include the subject line, "COMMENT LETTER- Cachuma Project Draft Order." Any faxed or em ailed items must be followed by a mailed or delivered hard copy with an original signature.

Written comments must be served on the Service List of PaJiies to Exchange Information in this proceeding as indicated therein. Comments that do not include proof of service will not be reviewed until the State Water Board has notified the parties.

If you have non-controversial procedural questions, please contact Environmental Scientist Jane Farwell-Jensen at (916) 341-5349, or to [email protected].

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Michael Buckman, Chief Hearings Unit

Enclosures:Cachuma Project Hearing Service List (Updated September 7, 2016) Draft Amended Permit 11308 Draft Amended Permit 11310

DRAFT · 09/07/2016

STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

ORDER WR 2016-

In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) held by the


for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River

SOURCE: Santa Ynez River

COUNTY: Santa Barbara

ORDER AMENDING PERMITS 11308 AND 11310 (APPLICATIONS 11331 AND 11332)

DRAFT 09/07/2016

STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

ORDERXXXX

In the Matter of Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) held by the


for the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River

SOURCE: Santa Ynez River

COUNTY: Santa Barbara

ORDER AMENDING PERMITS 11308 AND 11310 (APPLICATIONS 11331 AND 11332)

BY THE BOARD:

1.0 INTRODUCTiON

In this order, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board)

amends the terms and conditions of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation)

permits for the Cachuma Project (Permits 11308 and 1131 0 (Applications 11331 and

11332)) to protect public trust resources and downstream water rights on the Santa

Ynez River below Bradbury Dam. The State Water Board also approves Reclamation's

petition to change the authorized place of use and purposes of use for Permits 11308

and 11310.

The construction and operation of the Cachuma Project, including Bradbury Dam and

Cachuma Reservoir, has resulted in a reduction of water available to downstream water

right holders and public trust resources. Since the State Water Board issued Permits

11308 and 11310 (Permits) to Reclamation in 1958, the State Water Board has retained

1

DRAFT 09/07/2016

jurisdiction over the Permits to determine the requirements necessary to protect senior

water rights and the public trust resources downstream of Bradbury Dam.

State Water Board Order WR 94-5 established a deadline of December 1, 2000, to

commence a hearing on the protection of downstream water right holders. The State

Water Board held a hearing on that issue and on the issue of the measures needed to

protect public trust resources over eight days in 2000, 2003, and 2012.

The Santa Ynez River provides habitat for the Southern California Distinct Population

Segment (DPS) of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (steelhead), which is listed

as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

(16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544.) The Cachuma Project has adversely affected the steelhead

fishery by blocking access to the majority of suitable spawning and rearing habitat

upstream, and by modifying flows in the mainstem of the lower Santa Ynez River

(mainstem) below Bradbury Dam to the point that the survival of the species is

uncertain. (E.g., NOAA-12, p. 6.) Currently, Reclamation operates and maintains

Bradbury Dam on the Santa Ynez River in accordance with a Biological Opinion issued

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on September 11, 2000 (Biological

Opinion) pursuant to section 7 of the federal ESA. (16 U.S.C. § 1536.)

Even though Reclamation has operated and maintained Bradbury Dam in accordance

with the Biological Opinion for more than a decade, the steelhead population in the

Santa Ynez River remains at a critically low level. The hearing record supports the

conclusion that the population is unlikely to be restored to a sustainable level unless the

amount of suitable spawning and rearing habitat to which the steelhead have access is

increased. The hearing record supports the conclusion that higher flows are likely to

benefit steelhead by providing additional spawning and rearing habitat as well as

increasing passage opportunities in the lower mainstem river. At the same time, the

record supports the need for development of additional information and adaptive

management of flows to maximize the benefits of those flows to steelhead and avoid

potential impacts during implementation. Weighing the competing uses of water, the

Board has found that the need to protect and improve the critical condition of the

2

·DRAFT 09/07/2016

remnant Santa Ynez River watershed steelhead population is necessary. Therefore,

this order requires Reclamation to provide higher flows under an adaptive management

process during wet and above normal years when the water supply impacts of such

flows would be minimized (Alternative 5C from the State Water Board's 2011 Final

Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

Even though the higher flows will only be provided in wet and above normal water years

these higher instream flow requirements may increase to some extent projected water

supply shortages during critically dry periods for those who rely on Cachuma Project

water. These shortages are in addition to those already caused by implementation of

the Biological Opinion. (See Section 8.1, Finding Regarding Water Supply Impact.) As

a result, additional water conservation and increased reliance on alternative water

supplies may be necessary in order to compensate for future shortages during critically

dry periods.

In coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine

Fisheries Service, Reclamation will be required to study the effects of the increased

flows on steelhead to verify the amount of additional habitat provided by the flows and

determine whether a different release schedule would be more beneficial to the fishery.

In the unlikely event the results of the study demonstrate that the flows do not provide

benefit to the steelhead fishery or are likely to harm the fishery, this order reserves the

Board's authority to reduce the required instream flows.

Although additional flows are necessary, the evidence in the record is unsupportive that

solely increasing flows will be sufficient to restore the steelhead fishery. Implementation

of additional non-flow related measures and collaboration with other agencies and

individuals both private and public in a watershed and ecosystem approach is likely

necessary to solve this complex problem. In order to improve the state of knowledge

concerning the measures necessary to protect the steelhead fishery, this order also

requires Reclamation to study the feasibility of additional measures that may be

necessary to restore the fishery, including the feasibility of providing fish passage

around Bradbury Dam.

3

DRAFT· 09/07/2016

The Cachuma Project contractors and downstream water right holders reached a

settlement agreement that resolved actual and potential disputes that existed among

the parties relative to the obligation of Reclamation to make releases from Bradbury

Dam for the protection of downstream water rights and water quality. Reclamation has

requested that the Board amend its Permits to be consistent with this agreement. This

order amends Reclamation's Permits to be consistent with its request. The agreement

assumes specific operating criteria, currently in place, will govern fish flows below

Bradbury Dam. However, as already discussed above, this order requires additional

releases for the protection of public trust resources. The parties may need to negotiate

changes to the settlement agreement in light of the releases for steelhead required by

this order. As such, this order reserves the Board's authority to make any amendments

to the Permits that may be necessary based on any changes to the agreement.

2.0 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2.1 The Cachuma Project

2.1.1 Project Setting

The Santa Ynez River watershed, located in central Santa Barbara County,

encompasses approximately 900 square miles. The Santa Ynez River originates in the

San Rafael and Santa Ynez Mountains and flows west approximately 90 miles to the

Pacific Ocean. (See Appendix 1, Figure 1.) Bradbury Dam impounds water on the

Santa Ynez River, forming Cachuma Reservoir. The dam is located approximately 48.7

river miles upstream from the ocean and effectively divides the watershed in half.

Reclamation completed construction of the Cachuma Project in 1953.

The watershed upstream of Cachuma Reservoir is primarily undeveloped open space.

Located upstream of Cachuma Reservoir in the upper reaches of the Santa Ynez River

are two reservoirs: the first constructed by the City of Santa Barbara in 1920 (Gibraltar

Dam and Reservoir) and the second constructed by Montecito Water District (MWD) in

4

DRAFT 09/07/2016

2) implementation of the conjunctive operation of the BNA, with respect to determining

the application of Curve A and Curve B in determining the BNA credits; and

3) recognition of additional measurements to be carried out with respect to water flows

and quality. The Board recognizes that the parties may need to negotiate changes to

the Settlement Agreement in light of the releases for steelhead required by this order,

and will reserve authority to make any amendments to Reclamation's Permits that may

be necessary based on any changes to the agreement.

Finally, this order grants Reclamation's 1983 petition to change the place and purpose

of use authorized under its Permits. Accordingly, the Permits will be amended to

include within the authorized place of use all lands within the Cachuma Member Units'

service areas, and a net of 40,250 irrigable acres within a gross area of 205,376 acres,

as shown on specified maps. The Permits will also be amended to authorize the

following purposes of use: "Irrigation, Municipal, Domestic, Industrial, Salinity Control,

Incidental Recreation, and Stockwatering."

'11.0 ORDER

Permits 11308 and 11310 shall be replaced with amended permits that contain all

current terms and conditions set forth in the original permits, the applicable terms and

conditions imposed pursuant to subsequent decisions and orders, and the terms,

conditions, and changes specified herein. In addition, the amended permits shall be

updated to include current, mandatory terms and conditions. Specific term and

condition numbers and corresponding references to those specific terms and conditions

may be updated upon issuance of amended permits.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States Bureau of Reclamation's58 petition to

change Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) is approved.

1. The authorized purpose of use under Permits 11308 and 11310 shall be:

58 The term "'rightholder'' in the following permit terms refers to the Permittee, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

113

DRAFT 09/07/2016

Irrigation, Municipal, Domestic, Industrial, Salinity Control, Incidental Recreation,

and Stockwatering.

2. The authorized place of use under Permits 11308 and 11310 shall be:

All lands included within existing boundaries (205,376 acres) including the areas

of service within the political boundaries of the Cachuma Member Units: the

Carpinteria Valley Water District, the City of Santa Barbara, the Goleta Water

District, the Montecito Water District, and the Santa Ynez River Water

Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, and a net irrigable acres of

40,250 acres within a gross area of 205,376 acres, as shown on maps filed with

the State Water Board. Recreational use is at Cachuma Reservoir.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Permits 11308 and 11310 shall be amended to reflect

the modifications to existing conditions and the addition of new conditions required

below, and amended permits shall be issued that are consistent with the current permit

template used by the Division of Water Rights.

3. Permits 11308 and 11310 shall be amended to include mandatory permit Terms

A through Q. Mandatory permit Term E shall replace existing permit Terms 3

and 11, and mandatory permit Term 0 shall replace existing permit Term 4 of

Permits 11308 and 11310.

4. Standard permit Terms 5A and 5R shall replace existing permit Terms 1 and 2

respectively.

5. For the protection of downstream rights, existing permit Terms 5 and 6 of Permits

11308 and 11310, as modified by Order WR 73-37 and amended by Order WR

89-18, shall be amended in accordance with the technical amendments proposed

by the parties to a settlement agreement dated December 17, 2002, and agreed

to by the rightholder, and attached to and incorporated herein by reference

(Appendix 2).

114

·DRAFT 09/07/2016

All other sections, paragraphs or subparagraphs of existing permit Terms 5 and 6

of Permits 11308 and 11310, as modified by Order WR 73-37 and amended by

Order WR 89-18, not specifically amended by the December 17, 2002 agreement

or this order are intended to and shall remain in full force and effect.

6. Existing permit Term 7 of Permits 11308 and 11310, as modified by Order WR

73-37 and amended by Order WR 89-18, shall be amended to read as follows:

The State Water Board reserves authority to make any amendments to

Permits 11308 and 11310, as may be required concerning proper and

adequate releases of water for downstream use, and recharge of

groundwater, in satisfaction of downstream rights, based on any changes

to the December 17, 2002 settlement agreement between the Cachuma

Conservation Release Board, the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation

District, Improvement District No. 1, the Santa Ynez River Water

Conservation District, and the City of Lompoc, following notice and

opportunity for hearing.

7. Existing Permit Terms 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Permits 11308 and 11310, shall

remain unchanged.

IT iS FURTHER ORDERED that for the protection of fish and other public trust

resources in the Santa Ynez River, Permits 11308 and 11310 are amended to include

the following new conditions, as set forth below:

8. Except as otherwise provided in this term and in term [insert permit term number

corresponding to term 9], below, the rightholder shall operate and maintain the

Cachuma Project and implement conservation measures in accordance with the

description of the proposed action in Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) of the

Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa

Ynez River, June 2000, and rightholder shall comply with all of the Reasonable

and Prudent Measures, set forth at pages 67 - 68, and the Terms and

Conditions, set forth at pages 68 - 78, in the National Marine Fisheries Service's

115

DRAFT· 09/07/2016

Biological Opinion: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operation and maintenance of

the Cachuma Project on the Lower Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County,

California, September 2000 (2000 Biological Opinion).

a. For the protection of fish and other public trust resources in the Santa

Ynez River below Bradbury Dam, rightholder shall release or bypass

water to maintain the following Mainstem Rearing instream flows in the

Santa Ynez River, as set forth below, at all times.

Table 1 Flows Mainstem Rearing Flows

Flow (cfs) Requirements at: Reservoir Spill"

Lake Storageb (af) Highway Stilling

(a f) 154 Alisal Road Basin &

. Long Pool

.<: 20,000 NA 10 1.5c -.<: 120,000 5 1.5d -

< 20,000 .<: 30,000 and <

2.5 1.5d 120,000 -< 30,000 - - 30 af/moe

NA- not applicable 'Reservoir spill is calculated cumulatively over the course of the water year (FEIR, Vol. IV, Appendix F, Draft Technical Memorandum No.5, p. 6), which begins October 1 (FEIR, Vol. IV, Appendix F, Draft Technical Memorandum No. 5, p. 8). blake storage is measured on the first day of each month. (FEIR, Vol. IV, Appendix E, Technical Memorandum No. 1, p. 5.) 'The specified flow applies only when steelhead are present. 'The specified flow applies only if there was reservoir spill greater than or equal to 20,000 af in the prior water year and steelhead are present in the Alisal Reach. VI/hen there is less than 30,000 af of storage in the reservoir, rightholder shall provide periodic releases of 30 af per month as determined by the fishery agencies and the State Water Board to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool directly downstream of the dam to provide for steelhead rearing in these areas. Less than 30 af per month may be released upon determination by the fishery agencies and the State Water Board that less water is necessary to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool directly downstream of the dam for steelhead in these areas.

b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, rightholder is not required to implement

any of the tributary passage impediment and barrier fixes described in the

revised project description.

116

DRAFT 09/07/2016

c. The State Water Board reserves authority to modify this term based on

any modification to the 2000 Biological Opinion. Any modification to this

term shall be made in accordance with section 780 of title 23 of the

California Code of Regulations.

9. The rightholder shall release or bypass water to meet the Table 2 Flows, set forth

below, at all times during Wet and Above Normal Water-Year types:

Table 2 Flows (Wet and Above Normal Water Year Types)

Minimum Flow Period of Flow Purpose of Flow Requirement 48 cfs 02/15 to 04/14 Spawning 20 cfs 04/15 to 06/01 Incubation and Rearin_g_ 25 cfs 06102 to 06/09 Emigration

Rarnp to 10 cfs by 06/30 10 cfs 06/30 to 1 0/01 Rearing and Resident Fish

Maintenance 5 cfs 10/01 to 02/15 Resident Fish

The above flows shall be maintained at both San Lucas and Alisal bridges. These flows

may be met with both natural stream flow and releases from Bradbury Dam.

a. For purposes of this term, water year types shall be classified in

accordance with the following index:

117

DRAFT 09/07/2016

Cachuma ReseJVoir Inflow Index for Water Year Classification

Water Year Index Classification (Cachuma ReseJVoir Inflow)

(Oct. 1 - Sep. 30) (af)

Wet >117,842

Above Normal :S 117,842 > 33,707

Below Normal :S 33,707 > 15,366

Dry :S 15,366 > 4,550

Critical :S 4,550

b. During any given water year, the Table 2 Flows may be reduced or

terminated for a period not to exceed the remainder of the water year if the

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the National Marine

Fisheries SeJVice (NMFS) determines that the flows are likely to harm the

fishery. The rightholder shall temporarily reduce or stop releases to meet

the Table 2 Flows if and as directed by the Director of CDFW or the

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources in the

Southwest Region of the NMFS. Within three business days of receiving

direction from CDFW or NMFS to temporarily reduce or stop releases to

meet the Table 2 Flows, rightholder shall notify the State Water Board's

Executive Director (Executive Director), who may disapprove the direction

to reduce or terminate the flows if the Executive Director disagrees with

the determination that the flows would harm the fishery.

c. The Executive Director may terminate the requirement to meet the Table 2

Flows, or may allow a reduction in the flows required, if CDFW, NMFS,

rightholder, or Member Units demonstrate to the Executive Director's

satisfaction that the flows will not benefit the fishery or are likely to harm

the fishery.

d. The rightholder shall implement a change to the schedule of the Table 2

Flows as directed by CDFW or NMFS, if CDFW or NMFS, rightholder, and

118

DRAFT 09/07/2016

the Member Units have agreed to an accounting method that ensures that

the change will not cause a greater water supply impact than the impact

that would occur if water were released in order to meet the Table 2 Flows

in accordance with the existing schedule. Within five business days of

reaching an agreement that allows for the flow schedule to be changed,

the rightholder shall notify and submit the agreement to the Executive

Director, who may disapprove any changes to the schedule.

e. If CDFW or NMFS proposes a change to the schedule of Table 2 Flows,

but rightholder and the Member Units do not agree to the change

consistent with term [insert permit term number corresponding to term

9(d)], CDFW or NMFS may request the Executive Director to require the

change, and the Executive Director may require rightholder to implement

the change, provided that the Executive Director determines that the

change will not cause a greater water supply impact than the impact that

would occur if water were released in order to meet the Table 2 Flows in

accordance with the existing schedule.

f. Rightholder shall confer with the Member Units to reduce the safe yield of

the Cachuma Project in light of the increased flow requirements (Table 2

Flows) in wet and above normal water years to prevent the loss of

beneficial uses of the project during severe shortages. In determining the

project's safe yield, the rightholder and Member Units shall also consider

the current severe multi-year drought and the potential for more frequent

and severe periods of drought in the future. Consideration shall also be

given to revision of the assumptions used in prior determinations of the

"operational yield" of the project.

10. Within 90 days from the date of this order, rightholder must submit to the State

Water Board's Deputy Director for the Division of Water Rights (Deputy Director)

for approval, a plan that describes the measures in place or those it will

implement that will ensure compliance with terms [insert permit term numbers

119

DRAFT 09/07/2016

corresponding to terms 8 and 9]. If the plan includes future measures, a

schedule for implementation of those measures must also be provided. The

Deputy Director may direct the rightholder to make any changes to the plan

reasonably necessary to ensure compliance.

11. To determine the measures necessary to protect the public trust resources of the

Santa Ynez River, the rightholder shall conduct the following studies in

consultation with CDFW and NMFS.

a. The rightholder shall conduct a study on the Table 2 Flows that shall

include, but not be limited to: 1) analysis of the effects of those flows on

steelhead in the river and verification of the amount of additional habitat

provided, including habitat below the Alisal Reach; 2) an assessment of

the quality of the additional habitat, taking into account temperature,

dissolved oxygen, and substrate; 3) any detrimental effects to steelhead in

the river caused by the additional flows, such as increased temperature;

and 4) whether benefits to the steelhead fishery could be maximized

through an alternative flow schedule with equivalent or reduced water

supply impacts. The study shall be conducted in a similar manner as the

requirements in Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) of the Biological

Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez

River, June 2000, sections 3.4.2.2, 3.4.4.1 and 3.4.4.2. Rightholder shall

evaluate the results of the Table 2 Flows over five Wet or Above Normal

Water Year Types. In addition to analyzing the effects of the Table 2

Flows on steelhead in the river, rightholder shall analyze the extent to

which the Table 2 Flows can be conjunctively used to satisfy downstream

water rights, and whether any adjustments to the "above Narrows"

account or the "below Narrows" account are warranted in order to

minimize the effects of release or bypass flow requirements on Cachuma

Project yield. Rightholder shall complete and submit a report on the

results of the study to the Deputy Director, CDFW, and NMFS. The report

shall be submitted within a year after the conclusion of the fifth Wet or

120

DRAFT 09/07/2016

Above Normal water year unless rightholder shows good cause for and

the Executive Director approves a time extension.

b. In addition to the Table 2 Flows, rightholder shall study any other

measures that may be necessary to keep the steelhead fishery in the

Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam in good condition at the individual,

population, and community level. For each measure studied, rightholder

shall evaluate: 1) the extent to which the measure could benefit steelhead

and other public trust resources; 2) the technical and regulatory feasibility

of the measure; 3) the costs of the measure; 4) any potential impacts of

the measure, including potential impacts to water quality, fishery

resources, or water supplies; and 5) any other study-specific criteria

indicated below. After completing each study, rightholder shall submit a

report to the Deputy Director, CDFW, and NMFS that describes the study

and its results. At a minimum, rightholder shall conduct the studies

described below on passage, instream flow, invasive species, and stream

and streamside habitat restoration and habitat improvements.

(1) The passage study shall evaluate a variety of options for

providing passage of steelhead upstream and downstream of

Bradbury Dam, including: fish ladders, locks, elevators, and trap

and-truck operations, including associated collection facilities.

Provisions for both adults and smolts must be evaluated. The

study shall also include, but shall not be limited to, an evaluation of

reservoir outlet works, collectors, transport methods and

downstream release sites. Unless there is good cause shown for

not doing so, the study shall conform to the Santa Ynez River Fish

Passage Feasibility Analysis submitted on February 16, 2004 by

NMFS and on February 17, 2004 by CDFW during the proceeding

to consider modifications to these permits. Based on the significant

potential benefit of providing passage around Bradbury Dam, it may

be possible to defer the remaining studies pending completion of

121

DRAFT 09/07/2016 .

the passage study. If passage is feasible and likely to achieve

good condition of the steelhead fishery, the remaining study

requirements may continue to be deferred pending implementation

of measures that provide passage around Bradbury Dam and

monitoring to determine whether good condition of the fishery is

likely to be achieved.

(2) Rightholder shall develop and conduct an lnstream Flow

Incremental Methodology (IFIM) or comparable study to determine

flows necessary to keep the Santa Ynez River steelhead fishery in

good condition at the individual, population and community level.

The study must evaluate channel morphology and water quality

issues, including but not limited to sediment, temperature, and

dissolved oxygen.

(3) Rightholder shall conduct a study that evaluates the magnitude

of the effect of invasive species, particularly piscivorous fish, on

steelhead in the Santa Ynez River, and measures that could be

implemented to reduce the impacts of those species on steelhead

in the river. In addition, the study shall determine the effects of

beaver dams on passage opportunities and distribution of

steelhead and measures that could be implemented to reduce the

impacts on steelhead in the river. For each measure studied,

rightholder shall evaluate the extent to which the measure could

reduce the impact on steelhead.

(4) Rightholder shall conduct a study that evaluates stream and

streamside habitat restoration and habitat improvements that could

be completed to improve steelhead conditions in the lower Santa

Ynez River watershed in addition to, or in lieu of, the Table 2 Flows,

including but not limited to fixing impediments and barriers to

122

DRAFT 09/07/2016

passage or providing passage upstream and downstream of

Bradbury Dam.

c. Rightholder shall prepare a study plan for the studies described above and

any other studies that may be necessary to determine the measures

necessary to keep fish in good condition below Bradbury Dam. For all of

the studies except the study on the Table 2 Flows, the study plan must

include: 1) the sequence in which the rightholder proposes to complete

the studies; 2) the proposed deadlines for completing each of the

individual studies; 3) a description, subject to the Board's review and

approval, of the appropriate metric or metrics to be used to evaluate to

what extent a given measure will restore steelhead to good condition at

the population and community levels; and 4) the proposed deadlines for

submitting the completed reports to the Deputy Director that describe the

studies and their results. To the extent possible, studies shall be

conducted concurrently and in coordination with any other studies that

rightholder may be conducting or planning to conduct. Rightholder shall

consult with CDFW and NMFS regarding the development and scope of

the study plan as well as each individual study. Within 180 days from the

date of this order, rightholder shall submit a study plan to the Deputy

Director for the Deputy Director's review and approval. The Deputy

Director may direct the rightholder to make any changes to the study plan

necessary to ensure a timely and meaningful evaluation of the measures

necessary to protect public trust resources in the Santa Ynez River. In

addition, the Deputy Director may require the rightholder to conduct the

studies in phases, or to refine or augment the studies based on the results

of an earlier phase. Rightholder shall make any changes to the study plan

that the Deputy Director requires within the period that the Deputy Director

specifies and shall conduct and report on the studies in accordance with

the approved study plan. The Deputy Director may require updates and

revisions to the study plan as studies are completed and new information

is available.

123

DRAFT 09/07/2016

12. Rightholder shall: 1) Maintain a continuous record of the daily instream flows in

the Santa Ynez River at Highway 154 and at Alisal Road, or other sites that the

Deputy Director deems suitable, sufficient to document compliance with the

terms of this permit. The continuous record of the daily instream flows shall be

made readily available on a publicly accessible website. 2) Implement the

monitoring program described in the revised Biological Assessment (2000) to

evaluate steelhead and their habitat within the lower Santa Ynez River. The

monitoring program shall be implemented regardless of which flow requirements

are in effect. The Deputy Director may amend the monitoring requirements to

require additional monitoring or refine existing requirements.

13. Rightholder shall submit a report by December 31 of each year that verifies or

describes the status of rightholder's compliance with all permit terms for the

previous water year ending September 30. In order to document compliance

with term [insert permit term number corresponding to term 8], rightholder shall

submit annually to the Deputy Director the document produced in accordance

with paragraph (1) of the term and condition that implements Reasonable and

Prudent Measure No. 11 of the 2000 Biological Opinion. These reports shall be

submitted to the Division of Water Rights in a format designated by the Deputy

Director for Water Rights. The Deputy Director may require additional reporting

in order to determine compliance with all permit terms.

14. The State Water Board reserves authority to modify the terms of this permit as

set forth below to the extent necessary and appropriate to implement Water

Code section 100 and the public trust doctrine:

a. The State Water Board may increase, decrease, or terminate the flows

required by terms [insert permit term numbers corresponding to term 8

and 9] of this permit. In addition, the State Water Board may require

rightholder to implement any measures to restore or improve fish passage,

control invasive species, or improve habitat that may be necessary to

keep steelhead in good condition. Any subsequent determination

124

DRAFT 09/07/2016

concerning the flows or other measures necessary to protect public trust

uses and keep fish in good condition should be made with the benefit of

the study of the effects of the Table 2 Flows and the results of the studies

required by term [insert permit term number corresponding to term 11] of

this permit, and any other information available at the time, and shall be

made in accordance with section 780 of title 23 of the California Code of

Regulations. Rightholder shall implement any changes to flow

requirements or other required measures in accordance with any time

schedule established by the State Water Board once rightholder has

obtained any necessary regulatory approvals.

b. If the rightholder, NMFS and CDFW agree and can demonstrate to the

Executive Director's satisfaction that measures to restore or improve fish

passage, control invasive species, or improve habitat identified in the

studies required by term [insert permit term number corresponding to term

11] can and will be implemented that provide equivalent or better

protection than the Table 2 Flows to l<eep steelhead in the Santa Ynez

River in good condition, the Executive Director rnay authorize the

rightholder to implement the measures instead of meeting some or all of

the Table 2 Flows. Prior to implementation, the rightholder shall obtain

NMFS's and CDFWs approvals of final project designs.

15. If rightholder anticipates a violation of any of these terms or conditions or a

violation has occurred, rightholder shall provide immediate written notification to

the Deputy Director.

!TIS FURTHER ORDERED that Permits 11308 and 11310 are amended to include the

following new conditions, as set forth below:

16. Rightholder shall implement an Oak Woodland Restoration Plan that will achieve

a 2:1 replacement ratio of the oal< trees 20 years after the first Cachuma

surcharge event.

125

DRAFT 09/07/2016

17. Rightholder shall revise its February 8, 1996 contract with Santa Barbara County

Water Agency to the extent necessary to require the Member Units (the City of

Santa Barbara; Goleta Water District; Montecito Water District; Carpinteria Valley

Water District; and the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District,

Improvement District No. 1) to implement the water demand management

measures identified as part of the urban water shortage contingency analyses

contained in their urban water management plans. Rightholder shall require the

Member Units to implement the measures in accordance with the Member Units'

urban water management plans, as they may be amended.

CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a decision duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Board held on ______ _

126


Chris Dahlstrom ·

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Cindy Tuck· Friday, August 10, 2018 4:08 PM Cindy Tuck Wendy Ridderbusch; Melissa Sparks; Tiffany Giammona !! URGENT: PLEASE READ- POTENTIAL NEW VERSION OF WATER TAX BILLCOALITION LETTER

Dear Oppose-Unless-Amended Water Tax Coalition:

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is writing to inform you that a new version of the water tax budget trailer bill may go into print and be acted upon as soon as this coming week. This budget trailer bill would still impose the statewide water tax, with local retail water agencies having to imposing a tax on the water bills of residents and businesses. Our understanding is that this version would allow customers to opt out of paying the statewide water tax. The bill is not in print as of today.

ACWA continues to remain at an 'Oppose-Unless-Amended' position for the same reasons (e.g., it is inappropriate to tax something that is essential to life, the proposal would work against the affordability of water, and it does not make sense to turn over 3000 public water systems into tax collectors for the State of California). If the language goes into print, ACWAwill immediately send a coalition Jetter with your entity's name listed on the letter. Thank you for being part of our coalition. If you have any concerns, please contact Melissa Sparks at (916) 441-4545 or [email protected] by COB on Monday, August 13. If you have questions regarding legislation or strategy in this area, please contact [email protected].

Thank you, Cindy Tuck

Cindy Tuck, P.E. Deputy Executive Director for Government Relations Association of California Water Agencies 916.441.4545 I [email protected] I www.acwa.com

1

Updated: June 19, 2018 I I Sent: May 21, 2018

The Honorable Bob Wieckowski, Chair Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 State Capitol, Room 4085 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Richard Bloom, Chair Assembly Budget Subcommittee No.3 State Capitol, Room 2003 Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Budget Trailer Bill: Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund/

TAX ON DRINKING WATER

Position: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED

Dear Chair Wieckowsld and Chair Bloom:

The below-listed organizations are OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED to the drinking water tax budget trailer bill.

Alameda County Water District Alhambra Chamber of Commerce Amador Water Agency Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Antelope Valley- East Kern Water Agency Association of California Water Agencies Bard Water District Bella Vista Water District Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency BizFed Los Angeles County Borrego Water District Brawley Chamber of Commerce Brooktrails Township Community Services District Browns Valley Irrigation District Calaveras County Water District Cal Desai California Cleaners Association California Craft Beer Association California Municipal Utilities Association California Special Districts Association Calleguas Municipal Water District Cam rosa Water District Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carmichael Water District Casitas Municipal Water District

Central Basin Municipal Water District Centerville Community Services District Ceres Chamber of Commerce Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce Citrus Heights Water District City of Beverly Hills City of Corona Department of Water and Power City of Fairfield City of Garden Grove City of Glendale Water and Power City of Lakewood City of Newport Beach City of Oceanside City of Redding City of Rialto/Rialto Utility Authority City of Riverside City of Roseville City of San Diego City of Santa Rosa City of Shasta Lake City of Thousand Oaks Claremont Chamber of Commerce Clovis Chamber of Commerce Coachella Valley Water District Coastside County Water District Contra Costa Water District Crescenta Valley Water District

ORGANIZATION LIST CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Cucamonga Valley Water District Culver City Chamber of Commerce Del Paso Manor Water District Desert Water Agency Downtown San Diego Partnership Dublin San Ramon Services District East Orange County Water District East Valley Water District Eastern Municipal Water District El Dorado County Chamber Alliance El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce

El Dorado Irrigation District El Monte/South El Monte Chamber of Commerce El Segundo Chamber of Commerce El Toro Water District Florin Resources Conservation District/Elk Grove Water District Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

The Honorable Bob Wieclcowski and the Honorable Richard Bloom Page2

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Fair Oalcs Water District Fallbrook Public Utility District Folsom Chamber of Commerce Foothill Municipal Water District Fremont Chamber of Commerce The Gateway Chambers Alliance Georgetown Divide Public Utility District Glendora Chamber of Commerce Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce Hawthorne Chamber of Commerce Helix Water District Hidden Valley Lalce Community Services District Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Humboldt Community Services District Idyllwild Water District Indian Wells Valley Water District Indio Water Authority Inland Empire Utilities Agency Irvine Ranch Water District Kern County Water Agency l<inneloa Irrigation District l<irl<wood Meadows Public Utility District lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce La Canada Irrigation District La Verne Chamber of Commerce Laguna Beach County Water District Lake Hemet Municipal Water District las Virgenes Municipal Water District LAX Coastal Area Chamber of Commerce lincoln Avenue Water Company Long Beach Water Department Malaga County Water District

Mammoth Community Water District Mariana Ranchos County Water District McKinleyville Community Services District Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District Merced Irrigation District Mesa Crest Water Company Mesa Water District Mid-Peninsula Water District Millview County Water District Mission Springs Water District Mojave Water Agency Monrovia Chamber of Commerce Montara Water and Sanitation District Monte Vista Water District Municipal Water District of Orange County Nevada Irrigation District North Marin Water District North Tahoe Public Utility District Northern California Water Association Norwalk Chamber of Commerce Oalcdale Irrigation District Olivenhain Municipal Water District Orange County Water District Orchard Dale Water District Otay Water District Padre Dam Municipal Water District Palm Ranch Irrigation District Palmdale Water District Paradise Irrigation District Pasadena Water and Power Pico Water District Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Placer County Water Agency Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Quartz Hill Water District Rainbow Municipal Water District Rancho California Water District

Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce Regional Water Authority Redwood Valley County Water District Richvale Irrigation District Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District Rio Alto Water District Rio linda Elverta Community Water District Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce Rowland Water District Rubio Canon Land and Water Association Sacramento Metro Chamber Sacramento Suburban Water District San Diego County Water Authority San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Dieguito Water District San Gabriel County Water District San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District San Juan Water District Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Santa Fe Irrigation District Santa Margarita Water District Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1 Scotts Valley Water District Shasta Community Services District South Bay Chamber of Commerce South Coast Water District

The Honorable Bob Wjeclmwsld and the Honorable Richard Bloom Page 3

South Tahoe Public Utility District Southern California Water Committee Stockton East Water District Sweetwater Authority Tahoe City Public Utility District Templeton Community Services District Textile Rental Service Association Three Valleys Municipal Water District Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce Tulare Irrigation District Tuolumne Utilities District Twain Harte Community Services District

United Chamber Advocacy Networl< United Water Conservation District Upper Russian River Water Agency Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Vallecitos Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Valley Industry & Commerce Association Valley ofthe Moon Water District Valley Water Company Ventura County Economic Development Association

Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce Vista Irrigation District Walnut Valley Water District Westlands Water District Western Canal Water District Western Municipal Water District West Valley-Warner Center Chamber of Commerce Yolo County Flood Control Water Conservation District Yorba linda Water District Yuba County Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency

This budget trailer bill is essentially a modified version of SB 623 (Manning, D-Carmel), which is a 2-year

bill. The budget trailer bill would establish a fund to be administered by the State Water Resources

Control Board (SWRCB) to assist those who do not have access to safe drinking water. The organizations

listed on this letter agree with the intent of the bill. The lack of access to safe drinking water in certain

disadvantaged communities is a public health issue and a social issue that the State needs to address. The

bill proposes two types of funding: 1) fees related to confined animal facilities excluding dairies (CAFED),

fertilizer sales, and dairies to address nitrate contamination; and 2) a state-mandated tax on drinking

water that the bill would require local water agencies to assess on their local ratepayers and send to

Sacramento. No policy committee has heard the proposed tax. The above-listed

organizations oppose the proposal for a tax on drinking water.

PROBLEMS WITH A TAX ON DRJNJ(JNG WATER: Following are examples of problems with a tax on drinking water:

1) Requiring local water agencies and cities across the state to impose a taK on drinl<ing water for the State of California is highly problematic and is not the appropriate response to the problem;

2) It is not sound policy to tax something that is essential to life;

3} State law sets forth a policy of a human right to water for human consumption that is safe, clean, affordable and accessible. Adding a taK on water worl<s against keeping water affordable for all Californians; and

4) It is inefficient to turn thousands of local water agencies into taxation entities for the state and require them to collect the tax and send it to Sacramento.

CREDIBLE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: The above-listed organizations have developed credible funding alternatives to replace the proposed water ta", as outlined in Attachment A to this letter.

The Honorable Bob Wieckowski and the Honorable Richard Bloom Page 4

The first funding alternative is a funding package, including:

1} Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund {SRF)- this ongoing federal funding can be used to fund capital costs;

2) General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds- SB 5 (de leon, 2017}, which will be on the June 2018 ballot as Proposition 68, proposes $250 million for safe drinking and clean water, and another bond initiative which is expected to be on the November ballot proposes $500 million for safe drinking water. These bonds propose to prioritize the drinking water funding to disadvantaged communities (DACs);

3) Ag Funding- the nitrate-related fees proposed in the bill could be used for replacement water, including point-of-use and point-of-entry treatment, for nitrate contamination; and

4) General Fund- A modest amount of General Fund funding ($34.4 million per year) can fund the nonnitrate operation and maintenance (O&M) costs needs at public water systems in certain DACs.

Everyone in California should have access to safe drinking water. The fact that a small percentage of Californians do not makes this issue a public health and social issue for which the General Fund is an appropriate source of funding as part of the above-suggested funding package.

The second funding alternative is the creation of an Irrevocable Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Trust that could be funded with a one-time infusion of budget surplus dollars and would generate the needed net revenue for safe drinking water.

For more information about additional credible funding alternatives to replace the tax on drinking water, please refer to Attachment A.

AMENDMENTS: In addition to replacing the proposed tax on drinking water with one or more acceptable

funding alternative, the organizations listed above are suggesting the amendments shown on Attachment

B to address various concerns regarding this funding measure. The above-listed organizations urge your

"No" vote on the budget trailer bill unless the proposed tax on drinking water is removed and replaced

with one or more acceptable alternative funding source.

If you have questions, please contact Cindy Tuck, Deputy Executive Director for Government Relations, Association of California Water Agencies at (916) 441-4545 or at [email protected].

cc: The Honorable Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Honorable Members, Senate Budget Subcommittee No.2 Honorable Members, Assembly Budget Subcommittee No.3 The Honorable William W. Manning Ms. Kim Craig, Deputy Cabinet Secretary, Office of the Governor Ms. Joanne Roy, Consultant, Senate Budget Subcommittee No.2 Ms. Susan Chan, Consultant, Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 Mr. Trevor Taylor, legislative Aide, Office of Senator William W. Manning Ms. Race! Bettencourt, Budget Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Ms. Barbara Gausewitz, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus

Attachment B

SAFE AND AFFORDABlE DRINKING WATER FUND BUDGET TRAILER Bill

AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY

WATER AGENCIES AND WATER ORGANIZATIONS LISTED ON THIS lETTER

1) Do NOT include a tax on drinking water. (See Attachment A for four credible funding alternatives to replace the tax on drinl<ing water.)

2) Exclude capital costs as an eligible funding category and focus on funding O&M costs, which are difficult to fund through G.O. bonds and cannot be funded with SRF dollars. (G.O. bonds and the SRF are effective in funding capital costs.)

3) Limit the funding to disadvantaged communities (DACs) and low income domestic well users that do not have access to safe drinking water, consistent with 4) below.

4) Exclude individual domestic wells and "state small water systems" (with 5 to 14 connections) as eligible funding categories (with one exception for nitrate). Data is Jacking to support a credible needs assessment. For example, the state does not require owners of private wells to sample their wells, and consequently a comprehensive database for these groundwater sources does not exist. The bill should explicitly exclude these two categories from funding with the eHception that funding could be made available for replacement water for individual domestic wells or state small water systems in rural areas of the state for which the local health officer has certified that data documents that the wells for which funding is being sought in that area are contaminated with nitrate. The proposed definition of "replacement water" should be narrowed to make this exception workable. (Bottled water, point-of-use treatment and point-of-entry treatment are reasonable parts of this proposed definition.)

5) Make sure the funding goes to address situations where the water is not safe. For example, the proposed language in Section 116769 references systems that "may be at risk of failing." Funding for safe drinking water should go to where there are real problems as opposed to going to where there is a chance of a problem.

6) Focus on safe drinking water and recognize that affordability issues are being discussed in the State Water Board's AB 401 implementation process. The language should be deleted from Section 116769 which would include in the needs assessment all CWSs in DACs that charge fees that exceed the affordability threshold in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan (i.e., fees that equal or exceed 1.5 percent of the median household income). The State Water Board is currently developing a plan for a lowincome water rate assistance program pursuant to AB 401 (Dodd, 2015), and there are many questions being raised about how affordability thresholds should be determined.

7) Clarify what is intended by the proposed authority for the State Water Board to take "additional action as may be appropriate for adequate administration and operation of the fund." Instead of simply including this rather vague provision in Section 116768, the bill should be specific as to what this proposed authority is intended to cover.

8) Delete the proposal to give the State Water Board and the Board's staff broad liability protection as they implement the Fund. No case has been made as to why they should have such protection for this program.

lfire Depa:rtment "Serving the community since 1926"

HEADQUARTERS

44 1 0 Cathedral Oaks Road Santa Barbara, CA 93110-1042

TEL (805) 681-5500 fA,'{: (805) 681-5563

December 5, 2017

Mr. Chris Dahlstrom General Manager Santa Ynez River Water Conservation Dish·ict POBox 157 Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Dear Mr. Dahlstrom:

Age111da Item XIH.G.il.

Eric L. Peterson Fire Chief

County Fire Warden

Rob Heckman Deputy Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Andersen, Single Family Residence with Fire Protection Vacant Lot 6 Jonata Sh·eet, Los Olivos, 135-064-018

I am writing you regarding an upcoming project located on Lot 6, Jonata Street in Los Olivos.

It has been brought to my attention that a letter was issued by your department on July 31, 2017, to Mr. Andersen requiring an additional water meter to service an interior residential fire sp1inkler system. Correspondence in November 2017 between Mr. Andersen and Ms. Lydia Cardenas of 1D#1 has confirmed this requirement.

In September 2017, the office of the Santa Barbara County Fire Marshal issued a letter notifying all water agencies in our fire jurisdiction this practice shall not be allowed. I have been informed by the Fire Marshal, Chief Oaks, that the two of you have had a conversation confirming the receipt of the September letter and the reasoning behind it.

The Fire Marshal has established that a separate water meter shall not be allowed for NFPA 13D interior residential fire sprinkler systems. T11is determination remains the same for residential installations and we are requesting assistance to bring this matter to the attention of Ms. Cardenas.

:_.·ening rh~: cities of Buellton, G o!eh! ond Solvang. l.!i7d 1he C'onmnmii ies ({ C nsnwlio. Cu_ronw. Govimo. 1-i ope R1mch, Los Alamos, Los 0/h•os, lldission Canyon. AI;ssfon Hills, Orczrrl. 5'an!ti Aioria. Sisquoc, l'··undenberg f:·';/fage _~ ... -.o-·o

13 5-064-018 -2- December 5, 2017

We are confident the domestic water line servicing the required fire sprinkler system will be sufficient as we oversee a functional flow test, bucket test. Once the performance test is completed, and if a deficiency is determined, then three items can be improved in this order, an upsize of the onsite water line, overhead sprinkler mains increased and lastly the meter shall be required to be upgraded.

Mr. Andersen has been made aware that the primary water meter shall be required to meet the supply demand and any necessary upgrades to the system are at his expense.

In the interest of life and fire safety / ...___.y' .P

~ .............. , / r -··~- ()£.-{ ___ _ Glenn Fidler--; Captain Planning and Engineering Section

GF:mkb

c Kenneth Andersen, PO Box 41, Los Olivos 93441

September 19,2016

Chris Dahlstrom, Manager

fire Department "Serving the community since 1926"

HEADQUARTERS

4410 Cathedral Oaks Road Santa Barbara, CA 93 I 10-1042

(805) 681-5500 FA,'\:: (805) 68 I -5563

Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District- ID #1 PO Box 157 3622 Sagunto Street Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Dear Mr. Dahlstrom:

Elic L. Peterson Fire Chief

County Fire Warden

Rob Heckman Deputy Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Residential Fire Sprinlder Water Supply for One- and Two-Family Dwellings i.,..

Within the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, the Fire Department requires the water supply for residential interior fire sprinlders be combined with the domestic supply in such a way as to eliminate the potential for the system to be isolated fi"om the domestic system.

A single water meter for both domestic use and the interior fire sprinlder system provides a consistent and reliable water source for addressing the water supply needs of residential fire protection. The interior fire spiinlcler system for residential dwellings is a requirement of the State Fire Marshal.

If you have any questions or need further clarification, please contact the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Section Captain at (805) 681-5528.

In the intere t of life and fire safety,

Fire Marshal and Prevention Services Division Chief

~-J.Y.F!.\flf.C;. D.lD, #l

GF:mlcb SEP 2 3 2.Gl6

Serving the cities of Buellton, Goleta, and Solvang, and the Communiaes of Casmalia, Cuyama, Gaviota, Hope Ranch, Los Alamos, Los Olivos, lvlis:don Canyon, }Liffssion Hills, Orcutt, Santa kfaria, Sisquoc, and Vandenberg Village

Snntn Ym::z RiverW!lter Conservation District- ID.#l

Article 17 -PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE

Rules and Regulations Adopted Murch 20,2018

1701. Payment of Costs. An applicant for a new private fire protection service shall pay either (a) if a separate fire protection service and meter is requested, the total actual cost of installation of the separate fire protection service from the distribution main to the Customer's premises, including the cost of a detector check meter or other suitable and equivalent device, valve and meter box and the applicable connection charge and meter installation fee determined in accordance with Section 1609, said installation to become the property of the District; or (b) if the fire protection service is to be provided through the Domestic or Rural Residential/limited Agriculture meter, the capital facilities charge and meter installation fee for a larger meter and/or service connection, if determined to be necessary pursuant to Section 603 or 709.

1702. No Connection to Other Svstem. If a separate private fire protection service is installed, there shall be no connections between the separate privaie fire protection service and any other water dishibution system on the premises. If found an interconnection exists, then all service to the premises shall be suspended pursuant to Article 1400 and until such time the interconnection is mitigated.

1703. Use. If a separate private fire protection service is installed, there shall be no water used in any month through said service except to extinguish accidental fires, or for annual testing the Baclcflow Prevention Device. Should a misuse of the fire protection water occur, this is a violation of the Rules and Regulations and subject suspension.

1704. Actual Quantity Charge. Any quantity recorded on the meter of a separate private fue protection service will be charged at the Temporary rate for authorized baclcfJow prevention device testing only except that no charge will be made for water used to extinguish accidental fues where such fues have been reported to the duly authorized fire protection agency and the District. Use of fire protection water for unauthorized purposes shall be charged at double the Temporary water rate for actual or estimated water used in HCF. If such misuse continues any other month within 12 calendar months after the first violation occurred, the charge for water shall be at 10 times the Temporary water rate and water service shall be subject to suspension (article 1400) which shall include reactivation fees when service is corrected.

1705. Monthly Meter Charge. The monthly rate for water service provided through a separate private fire protection connection is established pursuant to the District's charges as set forth in Exhibit A to these Rules and Regulations.

1706. Water for Fire Storage Tanlcs. Occasionally water may be obtained from a separate fire protection service for filling a tanlc connected with the fire service, but only if written permission is secured from the District in advance and an approved means of measurement is available. The Temporary water rate applies.

1707. Violation of Agreement. If water is used from a separate fire service in violation of the agreement or of these regulations, the District may, at its discretion, tenninate and remove the service.

40

Snnlil Yne:z ffivcr W111er Cons6vntion District- ID.#l

Rules nnd Regulations Adopte~ Mnrcb 20,2018

G. Service Connections. The applicant shall, at his cost, provide and install the service connection at each location shown on the approved plans including the pipeline, curb stop and meter box, but not including the meter. The service installation charges shall not be levied where the applicant has installed the services at his cost except for meter installation charges and capital facilities charges.

H. Loops and Connecting Extension. Prior to installation of any water service, the applicant shall (1) construct any water main extension to loop or connect any required main extension to other portions of the District's water system determined by the Board to be required or made necessary in whole or in part by the construction of any required main extension; or (2) in the event any such water main loop or connecting extension has been previously constructed, or has not been constructed and need not be immediately constructed, shall pay to the District an Extension Fee calculated by the General Manager to reflect the applicant's proportional share of the cost or estimated cost of any such extension in relation to other Owners similarly affected.

I. Construction of Svstem. The applicant will be responsible for all construction of the main extension; however, the District shall inspect to check that materials and location of lines conform to the plans as approved by the District. Applicant will post with the District a faithful performance bond in the amount of 100% of the construction cost of the line prior to commencement of construction.

J. Further Requirements. 1n granting an application, the Board may make whatever further requirements as may appear to be necessary.

709. Meters. At the time of application for water service from a main extension to which service connections have been previously installed, the applicant shall pay to the District a fee to cover the capital facilities charge or connection charge and the cost of installation of one or more meters and control valves on the service connection. The fees specified in the attached schedule, which shall be attached to these Rules and Regulations as Appendix: "D." are for the minimum meter size permitted based on the size of the lot to be served. A larger Domestic meter may be required to provide adequate flow for all anticipated uses on a lot (domestic, landscape inigation and private fire protection, if such service is to be provided through the same meter) as determined by the District based on estimated flow requirements to be submitted with the application for water service. If a larger meter is determined to be necessary to provide all anticipated flows including private fire protection service, the capital facilities charge and the cost of installation for such larger meter shall be paid to the District by the applicant. The capital facilities charge for any meter removed to accommodate a larger meter shall be credited to the applicant. If private fire protection service is to be provided through a separate meter, the fire protection service meter shall be sized to meet the estimated flow requirements through that meter as determined by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department and the appropriate connection charge and cost of installation shall be paid to the District by the applicant for said separate meter as provided in Section 1609.

17

Chris Dahlstrom

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Matt van der Linden Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:15 AM Chris Dahlstrom Brad Vidro; Mike Mathews; John L Brady Partial return of exchange water in 2018

AgeU'ilda Btem XBU-11.2.

Hi Chris. If possible, can ID#1 make a partial return of our exchange State water according to the schedule shown below. We are requesting 140 AF ofthe 285 AF e)(change to be returned in 2018.

1. May: 20 AF 2. June: 25 AF 3. July: 35 AF 4. August: 3S AF 5. Sept.: 20 AF 6. Oct.: 5 AF

Thanks,

'J1!latt vau aer Lindim, PE

Public Wo1·ks Director/City Engineer City of So Iva ng 411 Second Street Solvang, CA 93463 (805) 688-5575

1

TRUSTEES: DP.!JSIQ.:•.;-1 L05.0LPiOS l~±r.J. Burchardi

DJVIEJD~;r;:

SOlVANG }dfChJ'

Dl\·'ISILJ!'-.,:-j SOLV~t.J"Ki Ke>-'in WaJ:-;h

QfVISiCH:-J 4 .SA. hiT"<\ YNHZ r,..rr~'-ut.'~ U~rchi:l.rdi

'i:Rl.l5l'1: t-AT-tJ. ... H.G'E [.l(,;~d )01);;

August 15,2017

Brad Vidro City Manager City of Solvang 1 644 Oak Street Solvang, CA 93463

Subject: Simple Exchange Letter Agreement

Dear Brad,

Following my conversations with Public Works Director, Matt van der Linden, over the past twb weeks and in an effort tb avoid ihe probability of the City of Solvang losing its 2017 carryover water with San Luis Reservoir ai or near capacity, this letter memorializes a water exchange between Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No.1 ("ID No.1") and the City of Solvang ("Solvang") related to the water purchased by Solvang through the CCWA Supplemental Water Purchase Program (~SWPP") and Table "A" water.

The Central Coast Water Authority ("CCWA") infonned its participating agencies that any unused water purchased in the SWPP or Table "A" water that is intended to be carried over into January 2018 has a high risk of losing a portion of or all of sucl1 supply. Because of this situation, Solvang is in a position to los.e a s_ubstantial amount of its water investment to those carryover losses.

To avoid such losses, JD No.1 and Solvang need to work together and agree to a simple water exchange. Below are the simple terms of such an arrangement.

o JD No. 1 will take delivery from August 1 to December 31, 2017 through its Mesa Verde SWP/Cachuma Tumout of an amount of Solvang's 2017 State water, termed in this arrangement as "ID1/Solvang Exchange Water', to the extent available and practical.

a It is understood by both parties that tl1e delivery of the Exchange Water is subject to ID No.1 taking delivery of its remaining 2017 Table "A" SWP water and Cacl1uma Project water first, on a monthly basis as scheduled, then, any amount over that monthly balance will be considered and accounted for as the ID1/So/vang Exchange Water.

F.C•. 0-0\ 1::.:;: "· 36'n SAGUNTO STREET. SANtA '{NEZ, CA 93±60 {803) 6S8-6015 , FAX: (805) 658-3078 , Vv\lvvV.SYRWD.ORG

• The am punt of 101/So/vang Exchange Water delivered to ihe Mesa Verde Turnout is dependent upon the CCVVA system availability since all of the CCWA participating agencies are taking delivery of Table "ft.'' Water plus water purchased during the drought causing impacts on the CCWA system capacity, and ID No.1's customer demand.

• It is estimated that the maximum amount of 101/So/Vang Exchange Water given the criteria above will be an estimated 400 AF. Although this is not guaranteed, ID No.1 will make a good fatlh effort to maximize the delivery of the 101/So/vang Exchange Water during this period to assist the Solvang.

During this arrangement, John Brady of CCWA has confirmed that he will separately account for the De.livered ID1/Sofvang Exchange Water to ID No.1 at its turnout each month and confer with ID No.1 and Solvang to assure the exchange amounts. On December 31, 2017 the total amount of Oelivere_d 101/Solvang Exchange Water will be accounted for and confirmed by the parties. ·

To complete the exchange loop, the total amount accounted for as delivered shall be the future Returned ID1/Solvang Exchange Water from ID No.1 to .Solvang at its turnout. The timing for the return is anticipated to be over a two year period (water year 2018 and 2019) providing that the DWR allocation of SVVP Table "A" water is greater than 28.5 percent in those given years. Should the DWR allocation be less in a given year, the remaining balance of the Returned 101/Solvang Exchange Water will be accounted for and the timing for the Returned 101/So/vang Exchange Water shall be extended into the following, subseq!J!lnt year.

Finally, because there is no transfer of SWP water between ID No.1 and Sol liang and this action represents an internal utilization of existing SWP contract water delivered at a different diversion poirit (both points being within the JD No.1 service area boundary), this only requires coordination between ID No.1 and Solvang, and neither DWR nor CCWA require any mechanism for approvaL Additionally, all charges associated with this simple water exchange arrangement shall be borne by the party incurring them; Solvang shall pay for the total amount of actual delivered water to ID No.1, and JD No.1 shall pay for the total amount of actual return water to Solvang.

I appreciate the cooperation and willingness to work tog!)ther wtlh you and the City in order to preserve this very important investment that took great efforts to secure during the drought. I am hopeful and trust this arrangement will work out as planned and that the results of this exchange will benefrt our customers.

The sign<Jtures below acknowledge the conditions contained in this letter and the acceptance of the arrangements described above. Please return a signed copy to the District.

Brad \iidro,-Cit9 .. .Manager- City of Solvang

Chris Dahlstrom, General Manager- SYRWCD, ID No.1 Date

As always, if you have any questions, please contact me,

Thank you and best regards,

Chris Dahlstrom General Manager

Cc: Matt Van der Linden, Public Worl<s Director- City of Solvang John Brady, Deputy Director-Central Coast Water Authortty

112612018

CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PURCHASE PROGRAM

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (for 2018)

This Sypplemenial Water Purchase Program Participation Agreement ("Agreement") is made as r ;u"' J J •·• b 0 u' i1 I ,. )"'.~ y -"-""···-- ~+-

CENTRAL COAST WATER AUfHORITY ("Anthority")

and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, lmprovem_enL[)i.!;!rlc~_#1 ("Contractor").

Recitals

A. TI1e Authority owns, operates and maintains water conveyance, storage and treatment facilities to deliver water from California's State Water Project to cities, water districts and other water purveyors and users in Santa Barbara County.

B. The Authority and Contractor are parties to a Water Supply Agreement dated August I, 1991 related to the matters descnoed in Recital A.

C. Due to a serious statewide drought, it is anticipated that the State Water Project will be unable to deliver to the Authority the quantity ofwater needed by the Authority for delivery to its Project Participants.

D. The Authority has determined that it should seek to acquire water from other sources . .

E. The Contractor has detennined that it wishes to participate in the Authority's pro grain to secure supplemental sources of water, and is willing to share in the expenses pertaining thereto.

Agreement

1. Representation: Delivery Goal: Cooperation with Authoritv. Conlmctor agrees that the Authority shall be authorized to represent Contractor in the identification, structuring and negotiation of transactions for the acquisition of imported water rights, contract water and other water and/or water related assets (collectively, the "Water"). Contractor represents that it is seeking to acquire 250 AFY of Water over the tenu ofthis Agreement ("Contractor's Delivery Goal"). Contractor shall be entitled to request an increase in the Delivery Goal stated in this paragraph by executing and delivering to the Authority, at any _time during the term of this Agreement, an Amendment to Participation Agreement in a fonn

Issued 07-06-18

A • I c D E F I l M I N I 0 I p Q v w X v z AA AD AC AD AE AF AG

. -rnhlaAAmt,AF· · ,'1:018

. .- _ Watcr_r~~~~~ Ava_ta~te ~~~ 20111 Year, Af _ .. . . ·. : .. .. . .. _ ·. ~~~~; ~iobl, AF . · . .. ... · . Proj~ct Pnrtlclpnnt · o~uv~ry :1.018 o~uv~ry SI.:II!Js, AF ·. Bnrik'ad_Wailir;AF

Pro Joel 'fah!D Drouuht Tai.:IITi!bh1A R~qu~sts, Dcl!vl!l}o-@ CarfYovCr 10#1 RI!I!Jm · M<>Jav:a :Z0.1BTa_l.:ll o~i~~-~;~~~-.,r Dellvariu E:i;tlmall!d · ·- Pul~d,~l~ _ ._ So!Vuhi.J-: I!Vl~e~ ~~: .. d -201&AVEK l015AVEK 2J?1& l.:lko· M_<>jDVI! T11!al W-:ltl!r

A Amount Burtei-+ GW!l AF la_S<>]Vari!Jin Exchanoa AVil.llnhlat<> ii~t .. ri::'cWA fbin_,3lnl~!l ~chariile" :' - i ,_ -~~~lc EllchOIIl!JI! ·::Oabt:'-·:-. :15% AI15GC ''PII!mdala Art 14b .T.cl.:ll~171'! i~ ~n~·r- ~ch.-_ ~'!II~D · .. Add Tab!!! A _R-~tilm 11Dil& :Z01B · -TUinnul1 1:- --~0~111 Sl!rvlceArna _f\v_an~.l~ tn_ , "" Wall!r .EiuOhan!Ja SW!>ADif18

I Table A t;arryaver_ carrya~ur '' 2018

· as~f · : Exdia!i·!i,.· -··. : S,'!:"nd_;_ · 'otli_<_ - .. Currycivar ., Tumauta nf 6- Ellchan!Jo' Ranch GW .·

. _.·.· -·•.-·.·· · ... ··. . ·AIIt>c:r.Ucit1

•

•.· ... . 1'-•·· .. _ .. ·-. . .. · 1..::11-16 -.. '- :ID-:1_0 __ ·_ - :p,.,g~· ·, l>~;iram ,: ''am,t -- , I

I

.···.· I ·. · .. . · .. · .. _ .. · .. . . ··· ... . . .. ·•· .. · ·· .. ·.·

City of Guadalupe 550 55 605 527 212 185 0 24 209 421 156 265 1 1 0 Cl!y of Santa Maria 16,200 1,620 17,820 12,041 6,237 1,821 451 709 2,981 9,218 4,224 4,994 0 0 0 Golden State Water Co. 500 50 550 335 193 268 19 22 309 502 271 231 0 0 0 Vandenberg AFB 5,500 550 6,050 2,594 2,118 3,508 0 241 3,749 5,867 1,095 4,n2 203 203 0 City of Buellton 578 58 636 552 223 407 0 25 432 655 91 564 21 21 0 Santa Ynez 10#1 (Solvang) 1,500 0 1,500 965 525 176 55 66 297 140 962 102 860 0 145 145 0 Santa Ynez ID#-1 500 200 700 1,250 245 0 0 4 4 (1•10) 109 55 54 0 0 0 Goleta WD 4,500 2,950 7,450 4,202 2,608 2,729 0 197 2,926 5,534 2,837 2,697 167 167 (2,500) (750) {3,250) Morehart Land Company 200 20 220 49 77 216 0 9 225 302 17 285 0 0 0 La Cumbre Mutual WC 1,000 100 1,100 866 385 445 0 44 489 874 194 680 0 0 0 Raytheon Systems Co. 50 5 55 32 19 7 0 2 9 28 19 9 0 0 0 City of Santa Barbara 3,000 300 3,300 2,859 1,155 886 112 131 1,129 1,500 3,784 1,731 2,053 0 0 (298) {3,021) (1,500) (4,819) Montecito WD 3,000 300 3,300 2,828 1,155 281 B3 131 495 2,800 4,450 1,724 2,726 0 0 0 0 {2,800) {2,800) Carpinteria Valley WD 2,000 200 2,200 1,799 770 0 74 0 74 1,333 2,1 863 1,314 0 246 246 0 (1,333) {1,333)

SUBTOTAL 39,078 6,408 45,486 30,899 15,922 10,928 794 1,606 13,328 0 5,633 34,883 13,379 0 21,504 392 145 246 783 {298) (5,521) (750) (5,633) (12,202)

Summary by Region .

North Santa Barbara County 25,328 2,533 27,861 18,264 9,753 6,364 525 1,092 7,981 0 0 17,734 5,994 0 11,740 225 145 0 I 370 0 0 I 0 0 0 South Santa Barbara County 13,750 3,875 17,625 12,635 6,169 4,564 269 514 5,347 0 5,633 17,149 7,385 0 9,764 167 0 246 I 413 (298) {5,521) (750) {5,633) {12,202) SLOCFC&WCD 4,830 "'' 4,830 3,460 . ...

. ·. · .

System Total 43,908 50,316 34,359

Agenda Otem XIU.

7. RECOMMENDED PROJECT

--......._ "'WOODARD &CURRAN

The Recommended Project is the Solvang WWTP Expansion I Upgrade (Clarifiers), which includes converting existing SBRs into a continuous flow process with secondary process trains that are 1/3 anoxic and 2/3 aerobic to improve denitrification/nitrification and two new 80' diameter clarifiers for solids separation. The clarifiers require additional land acquisition from the adjacent alfalfa farm. The project also includes demolition and ancillary improvements.

In parallel with these efforts, the District should continue to discuss the potential for a Chumash WRF expansion to accommodate all of the District's flows by engaging with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to detenmine the viability of the proposal and whether any additional costs are needed to address their concerns.

7.1 Project Description

The Recommended Project includes three groups of projects: demolition, ancillary improvements, and secondary treatment improvements. To bring to code, clean up the site, improve access, and make room for new buildings and housing structures, certain existing structures and buildings are proposed for demolition (Figure 7-1) (PACE, 5/1 0/2018; Section 5.1 ). The purpose of the ancillary improvements is to upgrade and enhance the general site conditions and provide a better setup for process improvements (Figure 7-2) (PACE, 5/10/2018; Section 5.2). The proposed ancillary improvements include:

• Construct new ad min building and parking Jot • Install new blowers • Install new aerators • Install new mixers • Install new generator • Renovate existing aerobic digester for a chlorine contact and recycled water storage tank • Install new sludge basin covers • Upgrade and install new sump pit pump station • Construct new sludge building • Construct truck access road • Clean percolation pond

Alternative 2 (Figure 7-3) consists of construction of two new secondary clarifiers that are 80' in diameter to accommodate 3 MGD of peak day flow, with one unit out of service. The City would need to purchase additional land from the adjacent alfalfa farm to the east of the site to accommodate the proposed two new clarifiers, the clarifier feed/RAS pump station, and sufficient space for truck access. A fourth secondary process train would be required for future long-term expansion.

Table 7-1 summarizes the recommended project capital and O&M costs. The O&M costs include power use estimates of 10,300 kW-hr/day (PACE, 5/10/2018, Table 7-3).

Table 7-1: Recommended Project Casts ($M)

Santa Ynez Community Services District (0653002.00) SYCSD RWFP _RevDraft to SWRCB_Jul2018

74 Woodard & Curran July2018

PRESS RELEASE I ANNOUNCEMENTS Monday, July 30, 2018

Bradbury Dam Scheduled to Make Downstream Releases Santa Barbara County, California SOURCE: SANTA YNEZ SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

In response to the continued drought affecting the Santa Ynez Watershed, the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District would like the Public to be aware that water will soon be released into the Santa Ynez River from Lake Cachuma's Bradbury Dam. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will release water from Bradbury Dam starting at 8:ooa.m. on August 6, 2018. The release is being called for by the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District to provide water to recharge the groundwater basins along the Santa Ynez River downstream of the Dam. These groundwater basins provide an essential source of water for the cities, towns and farming interests along the Santa Ynez River and on the Lompoc Plain. Initially released at about 180 cubic feet per second (360 acre feet per day), the water will move downstream to provide recharge as far as the Lompoc Valley. It will be confined to the "low flow" channel of the river. The release is expected to continue for about three months. The flow may impede traffic on low river crossings and caution is advised near moving water at all times. The release is consistent with State water rights orders as well as agreements among users who store water in Lake Cachuma. Cachuma Reservoir stores water for the South Coast and downstream users in the Santa Ynez and Lompoc Valleys. Water for the South Coast is released to the Tecolote Tunnel through the Santa Ynez Mountains. Water for areas below the Dam is released into the river from outlet works at the Dam. About 10,000 acre-feet of water is expected to be released. The combination of South Coast water use and the water rights release will reduce the water level in the reservoir to approximately s8,ooo acre-feet (elevation 690 feet) by the end of October. This release will not impact water deliveries to the South Coast and has been coordinated with the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board (COMB). Although the Lake will be lower, facilities at Cachuma County Park, including the boat ramps, will remain in full operation.

Chris Dahlstrom

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Greetings All,

Jane Gray _

Monday, July 16, 2018 12:18 PM Jane Gray Updated IRWM PSP and Funding Schedule

Agenda Item XID. K.

DWR has updated the Draft and Final PSP schedule along with the Application opening schedule. The table is below and also on their website (httj2S_://watgr.ca.go'l!/'-"Lorl\c'IYitbcl.!s/GLant_s-Ao!1cL_O_i!ns/IRWN1-GromH'rogr~rm,IPr_qp_Q'>itio_Q: 1).

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Implementation Grants Solicitation Process (includes DAC pi"Oject funding)

Milestone or Activity

Coordination with Regional Stakeholders RE: Development of Implementation Grant Program Concepts

DWR Releases Draft Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) for Public Comment Period (minimum 45-days)

TI1ree Public Meetings (Northern, Central, and Southem Califomia locations TBD)

Dralt PSP Public Comment Period Closes

. . . .. ' -·-.- " --.,

Tentative Schedule -

May 2017- August 2018

September 2018

October 2018

October 2018

r-----------------------------------------------+----------------~

DWR Releases Final PSP Late Fall2018 I

I Rmmd 1 Grant Applications Due to DWR3 First application 'I

anticipated Ap1il 2019 L_ _______________________________________ L_ ____________ j

1

Round 1 Grant A wards 2019

Round 2 Grant Solicitation Process Begins 2020

Notes:

1 1ncludes funding for projects benefitting disadvantaged communities. 2 Schedule subject to change. 3 DWR intends to work with potential grant applicants on a Funding Area basis following the release of the Final PSP and prior to submittal ofthe grant applications

Jane Gray

,t1,r;gion;:;l Pl;;,.m:r/Senior Project Hanager II

ENGif'.JEERII~JG + EI'>IVIROhl!·1ENT Al

621 Chapa b. StreEt, Sano Barbara. C:tlifornia 9310 I T 805.300.8531 F 805.963.2.07·1 C 310.562.1704

2

CALIFORNIA RIVER PARKWAYS GRANT PROGRAM

PROPOSTION 68

GRANT GUIDELINES & APPLICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

July 2018

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WORKSHOPS

SACRAMENTO August 14, 2018 9:30am-12:00pm

Resources Building 11th Floor, Room 1131 1416 Ninth St

Sacramento, CA 95814 Or via Webcast*

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/PublicWorl<s/Parl<inq-Services

AZUSA August16,2018 12:30pm-3:00pm

Rivers and Mountains Conservancy "EI Encanto"

100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road Azusa, CA 91702

Free onsite parking

Please RSVP using the following link: hUps://goo.gl/forms/2vONUNnC86XuEEZH3

Or alternately via Phone: (916) 653-2812 or Email: [email protected]

*Webcast information can be found at http://resources.ca.gov/grants/california-river-parkwavs/

The Guidelines include information to assisfthe applicant in preparing an application for funding. Please be sure to read them in their entirety for important information on project eligibility, evaluation criteria and submission requirements.

For general application process questions, contact the California Natural Resources Agency at:

Phone: (916) 653-2812 Email: [email protected]

Website: http:llresou rces.ca .gov/gra nts/californ ia-river -parl(ways/

HOW TO SUBMIT

This cycle of funding includes a two-step application process

1) Submit concept proposal (required} 2) If invited back, submit full application

Submit Both Phases Online: Concept Proposals and Applications must be submitted through the California Natural Resources Agency's System for Online Application Review (SOAR) found at: https:/lsoar.resources.ca.QQY. Note: SOAR is not compatible with Macs or Mozilla. Use only Internet Explore on a PC.

Concept Proposals must be submitted via SOAR by:

.5:00pm on Septembe~ 27, 2018

Applicants will need to sign up for a SOAR user account. A detailed guide on how to use SOAR and submit applications is located on our website at http://resources.ca.gov/arants/ under the Quick Links.

SOAR System Questions

For technical assistance with the SOAR website, please contact the SOAR help desk:

8:00AM - 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday Phone Number: (916) 653-6138 Email: SOAR.ADMII\[email protected]

A Help Desk representative will contact you regarding your email or call as soon as they are available to do so.

When contacting the SOAR help desk, please provide the following

,/ Proposal Identification Number (PIN) assigned to the application ,/ Name of the funding program (River Parkways) ,/ Short description of the problem, including where in the application the problem is

occurring ,/ A screen shot of the error received, if applicable

ii

Summary of Proposition 68

California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018

Environmental & Social Equity Investments

$725 million for parks In parkMpoor neighborhoods California's Outdoor Spaces

$200 million for local park grants (grants based on population) $IS million for park and recreation grants for jurisdictions with a population of200,000 or less $30 million for competitive grants to local park districts, open space districts, and open space authorities to create, ellpand, or restore parks ($S million for projects in units of the state park system managed by nonMprofit organizations)

$40 mlllion for grants to local agencies that have approved local park revenue measures

State ParltS, Natural & Cultural Legacy $218 mlllion foreJo~lsting state parks and improving public access to parks

o $10 million for state parks enterprise projects o $S mlllion for local agencies that operate a unit of the state park

system o $18 million for fairground facility Improvements o $30 million for low cost coastal accommodations o $25 million for state parks natural resource projects

Tralls & Greenway $30 million for non-motorized Infrastructure development and access Improvements competitive grants (up to 25% for Innovation transportation programs that expand outdoor experiences to disadvantaged youth)

Rural Recreation, Tourism, & Economic Enrichment SZS million for competitive grants to nonMurbanized areas

River5, Creelts1 & Waterways $162 million for river parkways and urban streams restoration

o $37 5 m111Jon to Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy o $37 5 million for San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and

Mountains Conservancy o $16 million for the Santa Ana Conservancy Program o $10 million to the Lower American River Conservancy Program o $3 million for the Los Gatos Creek and Guadalupe River o $3 million for the Russian River o $10 million for parkway along the Santa Margarita River o SS million for Clear lake o $10 million for the River Parkways Act of 2004 o $10 million for Urban Streams Restoration Program to the

Department of Water Resources o $20 million for parkway along the Los Angeles River

Ocean & Coastal Protection $175 million for coastal and ocean resource protection

o $35 million for grants to protect ocean and coastal ecosystems o $30 million for low cost coastal accommodations o $85 million for protection of beaches, bays, wetlands, & coastal

water5heds o $20 mlllion for coastal forest watershed health o $5 million for estuarine lagoons and coastal wildlife areas

Groundwater Sustalnability o $80 mlll!on for groundwater cleanup

Clean Drinking Water and Drought Preparedness

$250 million for clean and safe drinking water

Conservancies & Wildlife • $30 million for projects that Implement the Salton Sea Management

Program

•

$180 million to state conservancies o $6 million to Baldwin Hills Conservancy o $27 million to California Tahoe Conservancy o $7 million to Coachella Mountains Conservancy o $12 million for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy o $12 million to San Diego River Conservancy o $30 million to Lower los Angeles River and Mountains

Conservancy o $6 million to San Joaquin River Conservancy o $30 million to Sa niL! Monica Mountains Conservancy o $30 million to Sierra Nevada Conservancy o $20 million to State Coastal Conservancy

$137 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board, Including $5 million for regional conservation Investment strategies, $52 million for Natural Community Conservation Plan projects, and up to $10 million to the UC Natural Reserve System $200 million for voluntary settlement agreements $50 million for Dept. of Fish & Wildlife deferred maintenance

$170 million to the California Natural Resources Agency for Salton Sea Climate Preparedness & Habitat Resiliency

•

•

•

$18 mllllon forwlldlife & natural systems conservation direct expenditures and grants $30 million to remove barriers to between habitat areas and increase connectivity, including $10 million for the California Waterfowl Habitat Program $25 million to restore rivers and streams In support of fisheries and wildlife, Including $S million for salmon and steel head projects in Klamath-Trinity watershed

$60 million to Improve wildlife & fish passage, including $30 million for Southern California Steel head habitat

$60 million for upper watersheds protection in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades

$30 million to Improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams $40 million for grants to assist coastal communities and fisheries with climate change adaptation, with 35% to the SF Bay Area Conservancy Program, and 12% to the West Coyote Hills Program

$30 million for innovative farm practices that improve climate resllience $50 million for forest restoration & fire protection Including hazardous fuel load reduction and management for wildfire and climate change, with at least 30% for urban forestry projects $40 million to state and local conservation corps for restoration &

protection projects and equipment $60 million to restore natural, cultural, ethnic, and community resources, and convert fossil fuel plants to green space, with $20 million of this amount for multi-benefit "green infrastructure" benefiting disadvantaged communities

Flood Protection and Repair • $550 million for flood protection and repair, Including $3SO million for

flood protection, $100 million for stormwater, mudsl!de, and other flood-related protections, and $100 million for urban multi-benefit flood projects

Regional Water Sustainability

$290 million for regional water sustainabillty, including $50 million for groundwater sustainabllity planning

$100 million for water recycling, including $20 million for agricultural operations to implement irrigation systems that save water

Project Name Project Description Alluvial Well Treatment Project This project will provide potable water treatment to the District's Gallery Well through the

installation of a package water treatment plant. The Gallery Well is currently under the influence of surface water in the Santa Ynez River and cannot be used for potable purposes.

Reservoir Aeration Systems Water This project will add aeration systems to two of the District's distribution reservoirs for the Quality Project purpose of reducing nitrification and the formation of trihalomethanes {THMs).

Well Replacement and System During the current drought, the District lost the use of its two oldest wells. Restoring Reliability Enhancement Program these wells and returning them to active service will return system reliability in its backbone

Uplands Aquifer. Well Head Treatment and Water Adding treatment technology to selected wells to remove nitrates, iron, manganese and/or

Quality Project other contaminants will enhance system water quality and and Increase overall reliability. Solar Energy Project Assess optimal locations and install solar systems at District owned facilities to reduce the

dependance on non-renewable energy resources. Agricultural Water Use Effiency Project Through the use of innovative technology, incentives, and targeted outreach, this project

will improve the efficiency of agricultural water use. Currently, SO% of the Districts water sales are to agricultural customers.

Home Water Conservation Water efficiency programs, incentives, demonstration projects, education and outreach lmplimentation Program will help the District achieve its water conservation goals and reduce demand on local

water supplies and resources. Groundwater Blending and Water This project will design and build blending structures at strategic locations In the distribution

Quality Enhancement Project system to equalize and enhance water quality and ensure that the District can meet all water quality goals to each and every customer.

Waterline Replacement and Upsizing This project would replace failed 12 inch and 18 inch valves in critical water mains as well as Project aging 2 inch lateral pipes that need to be upsized to 4 inch.

Family Farm

LLIANCESM Protecting Water for Westem Irrigated Agriculture

fi A Summary of tire Alliance's Recent curd Upcoming ActiJ•ities and Importaat JJ'ater News:

The Endangered Species Act Trivector Reform Proposals Teed up by Administration, Senate and House

In the past month, reforming the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been a hot topic in DC- both in Congress and the Trump Admi nistrLition. In a two-week period, more than two dozen bills, policy initiatives and amendments designed to modernize ESA were either introduced or voted on in Congress or proposed by the Trump administration.

In the House

The 70-membcr House Western Caucus have unveiled a group of nine bills, collectively referred to as Lhe "Bipartisan ESA Modernization Package."

cies; 3) promoting voluntary species conservation efforts by londowners and others; 4) enhancing partnerships between

cies management; and 5) excluding water infrastructure from being included in critical hobitat designations.

npifteen Members of Congress, 12 panelists, nine bills, and a combined thousands of hours of experience dealing with the Endangered Species Act at all levels," said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-ARLZONA). "That's what we put on display today when we introduced our ESA modernization package and held a packed Legislative Forum and press conference."

Olher proposals would cap attorney's fees for those who prevail in ESA related lawsuits, and allow Lhe Secretary oflnterior to declare a listing petition bacldog and to set aside ones deemed insufficiently scientifically based.

The legislative provisions -endorsed by over 115 national, state and local groups- focus on severn I proposed actions including: I) improving the recovery a f species; making the delisting process more effective; 2) increasing tmnsporency in the listing ofspe-

"Many of the issues that !i!fii!,~!!il!'mJi;m;;Jim:q· :~'1:i:!l;i;; d,i:!i~!~:i;iihi;!i;!!' l!!;iU'!iJ!wr !ii;;ijr !mmum'i~ ,!!;!" ;!;!ni: !i!i;!imi!'' this package attempts to ad-.mrm: !~::lmin!:i:i:!' ,!!:!" ii!~·!l' iWi!i!i!:g:J:! ':!r !;'!!~'!;i;i=:,,!. dress- including efforts to il''l:i:ii:!Ii N:ii:li!ii',if!ltii 1i~!',!mt!i'!"'!ii !;::~u:H:mm reduce the petition backlog,

states and the Interior Department in spc-

STORIES INSIDE. .• ;.,, ... · f---.,----,----,--, P:it>e #

. . Comnlittcc Advanc,c~·srU_!·e_ Of::F_riilcnll Lall:d~;-:\Vatcr s'hi~ StntL'-Propo~cd Flo-iv·PinD Drn:\·s:Irc.of Central Vall~y Fnr-~i:crs House Passes Reclamation Title-Transfer Act Allinnce;:\Vaterfo:wi,:, __ Ag·I_rJtm;;~'s,(:s)~,:Us·c Cot1cerns 01i Klatil'at'h Lawsuit \VA TER/\ctPass_e~ .ll'o~~-e _of,:~:cpre_SentativeS Senate \iotc_on"\VRbA -InnllinCrit . H oUsc :;(g~c~s··'to·-~0' t~i-·to~tC·j;~'fi'CC'·\\;i-th :-Se'ila·tc OT(F ~1-ril Bni Donor Support I nfOnnatiOn

3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8

promote voluntary conservation, and enhance the role of stateshave been discussed for many years, and we helped craft, testified in support, and/or written letters of support for many of these legislative concepts over the past several Congresses," said Family Fann Alliance Executive Director Dan Kcppen.

However, little has happened legislatively regarding ESA, with the Act last amended during George H. W. Bush's Administration. Caucus Members are hopeful that by presenting this as a series of straightforward,

Colltinuetl 011 Page 2

Monthfy Briefing July 2018

Endangered Species Act Trivector (Cont'd (rom Pg. 1) standalone bills, it will enhance efforts to advance some, if not all, of them.

"We're all aware that the Endangered Species Act hasn't undergone any significant updates in over 40 years. Neither endangered species, nor the American people, are benefited by this lack of modernization. It's past time for reform," said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UTAH].

Timing on a hearing, or hearings, on the package is uncertain at this point.

In the Scnntc

Within a week of the Western Caucus rolling out its ESA package, the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW Committee), held a hearing on Chairman John Barrasso's discussion draft ESA bill. The hearing featured testimony from Matt Mead, governor of the State of Wyoming; Bob Broscheid, director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife; and Matthew J. Strickler, Secretary ofNatural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

"If we work together, Republican and Democrat, we can ensure that this important law fulfills the full conservation potential, and works better for species as well as for people," said Senator Barrasso (R-WYOMING) in his opening statement at the hearing.

Senator Barrasso observed that Congress last reauthorized the ESA with amendments of substance in 1988-30 years ago.

the association's Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative, led by Wyoming Governor Matt Mead.

EPW Committee Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-Del.] stated his appreciation for the ability of governors to come together with stakeholders and solve difficult issues on the ground and commended Governor Mead for spearheading the bipartisan 3-year process through the WGA to discuss possible improvements to the ESA. He aclmowledged the "thoughtfulness" that went into the WGA Initiative.

"Having said that, though, I'm having a hard time understanding how this legislation in particular will better recover species or better serve the American public," Senator Carper said.

"The Family Farm Alliance participated in meetings with WGA on tWs Initiative for over two years and we generally support its recommendations," said Alliance President Patrick O'Toole.

The Alliance earlier this month sent a letter in support of the discussion draft bill and strongly urged its members to do the same.

While the draft legislation has received broad support from many stakeholders, state and local governments, and conservation organizations, it was criticized by some environmental organizations with a litigious history.

"Senator Barrasso's proposed legislation has far more to do with pleasing the Western Governors' Association and industries that oppose wildlife conservation than helping

"Even the U.S. Constitution has been amended more recently than the Endangered Species Act," he

"The members ofthe WACC have been constructive(v engaged in the Westem Governors' Association's Species Conservation and Endangered

endangered species," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife.

Prior to the hearing, the Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition

said. Species Act Initiative since its inceptiou, aud we are supportive of its focus on species recove1y and habitat improvemellts 011 working lauds .... Only

through true bipartisanship aud broad stake/wider engagement will we create good policy, address the 11eeds of CIJ/11111/lllities and species, and eventu-

ally advance this ESA legislatio11."

Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition Letter to Senate EPW Committee

(W ACC) -which includes on its Steering Committee the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, Family Farm Alliance, Irrigation Association, The Nature Conservancy, Public Lands Council, Trout

The discussion draft reauthorizes the ESA for the first time since 1992. It emphasizes elevating the role of states and increasing transparency in the implementi:ltion of the ESA. It also prioritizes resources to better meet its conservation goals and provides regulatory certainty to promote conservation and recovery activities .

Unlimited, and Wyoming L...-~------------------------' Stock Growers Association

.. A major goal of the Endangered Species Act is therecovery or species to the point that protection under the statute is no longer necessary," said Chairman Barrasso. ''Since the ESA was signed into law, only 54 out of2,393 species listed in the U.S. and foreign countries have been dclisted because they have recovered. That is less than three percent. We must do more than just list species and leave them on life support but that is what we are doing now. We need to see them recovered."

Senator Barrasso worked with the Western Governors' Association (WGA) in drafting the legislation. The bipartisan WGA has stated that the chairman's discussion draft legislation is generally consistent with the WGA recommendations for modernizing the ESA nnd includes provisions inspired by

transmitted a hard-negotiated letter to the EPW Committee. "The members of theW ACC have been constructively

engaged in the WGA Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative since its inception, and we are supportive of its focus on species recovery and habitat improvements on working lands," the WACC letter states. "We appreciate that you have released your discussion draft- based on recommendations from this process- as a starting point for further conversations and we appreciate your willingness to accept feedback and modifications to the discussion draft

Continued on Page 3

Pagel

ifilanthly Briefing July20l8 ---------

Committee Advances Slate of Federal Lands, Water Bills The House Committee on Natural Resources earlier this

month passed I 0 bills, including water-related legislation: H.R. 5556 (Rep. Paul Gosar, R-ARIZONA), H.R 6038 and H.R. 6039 (Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-NORTH DAKOTA), and H.R. 6040 (Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-CALIFORNIA).

"These bills improve how the federal government stewurds its resources and empowers local communities to play an active role in their management" said Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT AH). "I'm thankful for the hard work put forth on these pieces oflegislation and will continue to help shepherd them through the legislative process."

H.R. 5556, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transpar-

ency Act of2018, provides for transparency and reporting rein ted to direct ami indirect costs incurred by the Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, the Soulhwestem Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration related to compliance with any Federal environmental laws impacting the conservation of fish and wildlife. H.R. 6038 and H.R. 6039 establishes a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the Dickinson Reservoir and Jamestown Reservoir, respectively, in North Dakota. H.R. 6040, the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and facilities of California's Central Valley Project.

ESA Trivector (Continued from Page 3) before introducing legislation. Only through true bipartisanship and broad stakeholder engagement will we create good policy, address U1e needs of communities and species, and eventually advance this ESA legislation."

From the Trump .·\dministration

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA) enrlier this month jointly proposed revisions to regulations that implement portions of the ESA. The Alliance has been monitoring this Administrative action closely and participated on the roll-out conference cull with Interior and NOAA officials. The Notice of Proposed Rules addresses several changes to ESA Section 4, which deals with procedures for listing and recovery and designating critical habitat, section 4(d) which address protective regulations and Section 7 streamlining interagency cooperation.

"It's no secret that modernizing the Endangered Species Act is long overdue," said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop." DOl's proposed rules incorporate public input, innovative science and best practices to improve efficiency and certainty for federal agencies and the public. I commend Secretary Zinke and Deputy Secretary Bernhardt for their excellent leadership on this issue and look forwurd to working with my colleagues to enshrine these actions into law."

Once the proposed rules are published in the Federal Register comments must be received witl1in 60-days of publication. The agencies will weigh the public comments and then uct, likely moving forward with a major re-write ofESA regulutions for the first time in over 30 years.

The proposed rules, among other things, seek to rescind the blanket "4(d) rule" conveying the same protections to ESA listed species for both threntened and endangered status, unless specified differently; interpret "roreseeable future" under the ESA in determining potential for probably extinction of a listed species; ensure standards for listing and deli sting under U1c ESA arc consistent; propose to update Section 7 consultation, including the definition of

"destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat; provide, when relevnnt, information on possible economic and other impacts ofESA decisions to the public; and modify the process for designation of critical habitat for n listed species, including raising the bar for consideration of unoccupied habitat in such designations.

The proposed rules were published in the Federal Register on July 25, at which time lhe public comment period will be open for 60 days, or until Septemher 24 (unless extended).

Is the ESA endangered'?

Opponents to ESA reform appeared united in their observations that, once again, the ESA is at risk of being gutted or eliminated by the GOP, as reported in a recent Ne·w York Times story.

"The last few weeks have seen the most coordinated set of attacks on the Endangered Species Act I've faced since 1 got to Washington," said Rep. Raul Grijolva (D-ARIZONA), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. "This is a crucial test," he said.

Bruce Babbitt, who served at Interior Secretary in the Clinton Administration, said, ''"This is the first time that we've seen an orchestrated effort by the president, theRepublican leaders in the House, the industry and the Interior Department all working together in a concentrated effort to eviscerate the act."

"I think the Endangered Species Act is endangered," added Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "They haven't been able to do this for 20 years, but this looks like their one chance."

House Resources Committee Chairman Bishop obviously disagrees.

"The law needs to be updated to ensure it maintains its original intent nnd focus of species recovery and not simply serve us a tool for endless litigation," said Chainnan Bishop. "The Committee has worked for many years to put the ESA back on the right track. Now is the time lo modernize this antiquated Jaw to simultaneously benefit both endangered species and the American people."

Page 3

Monthly Briefing July 2018

State-Proposed Flow Plan Draws Ire of Central Valley Farmers

As California faces a season of record-breaking temperatures and skies darkened by smokes from dozens of wildfires, Central Valley farmers are fuming for a different reason: a proposed flow plan that is an update of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan under California's PorterCologne Act. This includes a review of water quality standards, including instream flow requirements.

Impacts to Central Valley \Vater Operations

wrote. "Instead, it would only be the latest version of the tried-but-failed approach that certain environmental groups and regulatory agencies have pushed since the early 1990s."

CFBF has prepared a number of resources that summarize this issue and the impacts it will have on California's family fanners and ranchers. Those resources can be accessed aloog with additional data on the California Farm Bureau Federation website: http://cfbf.com/top-issues#wrrter.

The Family Fann Alliance joined other CFBF and other agriculture and water organizations in a letter sent to the SWRCB earlier this month, outlining concerns with the flow objectives on the Lower San Joaquin River.

Statewide Impacts

If adopted and implemented, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Bay-Delta Update would drastically reduce water supplies throughout California. Specifically, the water board's standards would require releases of30 to 50 percent of water in the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers, and 45 to 65 percent of flows from the Sacramento Beyond the Central Valley, the water board's flow pro-River, its tributaries (including the Feather, Yuba, and Amer- posals threaten critical Bay Area water supplies in the Moke-ican rivers), and from the lumne and Tuolumne Eastside Delta tributaries rivers. In addition to up-(including the Mokelumne stream impacts in the and Calaveras rivers). Central Valley and in the

"[I]f a 50% unim- Bay Area, by impacting paired flow requirement reservoir operations and were to be imposed im- reducing available water pacts to the cold-water for junior water users, the pools of Shasta, Oroville, water board's proposal and Folsom Reservoirs would inevitably reduce would be impacted in 80% delta exports and, thus, of the years," attorneys water supplies to all with the Northern Califor- points south, throughout nia Water Association Cenlral and Southern wrote to the SWRCB in California. Among other 2016. "[R]escrvoirs would impacts, major reductions reach their dead pools in in surface water supplies 20 to 40% of the years." would greatly complicate

The water board's or frustrate local efforts standards would damage to balance groundwater

. . basins under the Sustain-regional economies h 1 1 c 1 i;J'~fi::ifiH!•tih!i; ;!itti'li .mi• ,;:i;ji:;'n~i' :J':iiW<i;i;;mi1: ,i;i'Wi;!!~i!li~!mm: :f1iiliii!id1!!ii'.:•ii:imi!ii'Priii;r ;tf.f,;m,!w:mi; able Groundwater Man-

t~~~~~~t£~F):, .~~~~~:;@fi~%~gff.~!f.i::, . ~~i::i~~~iL Sacramento and San !i ,,,.,;'~!,1 !!•r.ti::!~;! •. t .k ... ~''''' .zd.flm! Ia: ••. 1 !.l.r::.:~·"'b' .,hr.;Jr: r:;::~! j Casey Creamer satd, Joaquin valleys. !i .......... . ................ ; ... m;::::::::::::::::::::mmmmmmm""'''''''''''''''''' ............ ;;mm::;::::::::::::::::::m:mmmm""''""''"')i "this effort is nothing but

"Farm families and rural communities would suffer from a power grab by SWRCB that deserves the full attention of this proposal," California Fann Bureau Federation (CFBF) all bodies in the state. Where does it stop?"

President Jamie Johansson said. "It would impose a high cost on rural communities while providing little or no benefit to fish."

California Farm Water Coalition says this plan will cost 6,500 jobs. CFBF says there will be "staggering11 human costs.

•'The plan is guaranteed to hurt people, but there's no guarantee it would help salmon or other fish," Justin Fredrickson, environmental policy analyst CFBF, recently

An Alternative Appronch

According to CFBF, as a "far superior alternative to the water board's over-reach" with its unimpaired flow standnrds, water users in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys have made major investments in reasonable alternatives,

______ c_o_,_•_ti_"_ue~--o-" ~~~~~=- _____ I Page4

Morrthfy Briefing July 2018

House Passes Reclamation Title Transfer Act On July I 2, tl1e House passed, by a vote of233- I 84, the

Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act (I-I.R. 3281). The bill authorizes the Secretary of the fnterior to convey the title to federal water infrastructure facilities, such as dams or inigation canals, maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to nonfederal entities if certain conditions are meL

saving money for taxpayers and providing the flexibility needed for water users in our western states."

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CALIFORNJA) Jed the charge on the House floor to reject Rep. Lamborn's bill.

"This bill is a bad deal for taxpayers," Rep. Huffman said. 11It allows the Secretary of the Interior to hand over publicly owned infrastructure and other federal assets to private

interests without appropriate taxpayer compensation."

Lamborn objected to this characterization.

"I don't call it a giveaway when someone gets title to something they've already paid for," he added. "Facilities eligible for transfer under

.;!i;::: ... >:;~l;' !iii this process ~ould be subject to an ......... ;;,;, .. :::,,m::m .... ,!!L agreement wtth Bureau ofReclama-

Under current law, Reclamation may transfer day-to-day operational and maintenance responsibilities of these Reclamation facilities to project beneficiaries but requires specific Congressional authorization to transfer ownership of Reclamation assets. H.R. 3281 removes this existing law by empowering the Secretary of the Interior to convey the title.

Rather than requiring Congressional approval, the bill gives Con

Rep. Lambom (R-COLORADO) during tion that would require these projects House floor debate. Source: C-SPAN to be fully paid ofT."

gress a ninety-day window to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to prevent a conveyance from moving fonvard.

Introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-COLORADO), this bipartisan bill establishes a voluntary, streamlined process for local utilities, states or tribes to pursue title transfers.

"TransCening these low-hanging fruit projects, or parts of them, "Will allow water districts to leverage nonfederal financing. through ownership equity and would decrease federal liability," Rep. Lamborn said.

"We need to bring our nation's water infrastructure into the 21st century,11 added Rob Bishop, Chainnan of the House Natural Resources Committee. "This bill does that while

Contrary to claims by opponents of the legislation, the title transfer improvement process was begun by previous Administrations and has been driven by career Reclamation staff interested in improving the process and is a far cry from "privatization". The implied intent of Reclamation "transferred works" has always been to provide ownership to the local entities who are responsible for operations and maintenance and creating an administrative process to do so simply removes the high hurdle of successful legislative action.

The Family Farm Alliance has long advocated for finding ways to simplifY the title trans-

Contillued 011 Page 7

-------- =============================================="========================================~_j ___ ,.,_ .. ________ _

California Instream Flow Proposal (Continued (rom Page 4) demonstrating many on-the-ground successes.

Local water agencies in recent years have made rapid advances through collaborative partnerships to improve habitat and other conditions for salmon and other fish species.

Water users' alternatives emphasize collaborative partnerships and measurable increases in fish populations. They emphasize "functional flows" in place of'"unimpaired flows," and include measures to address important "nonflow" factors including predation, the lack ofhabitot, fish passage, water temperatures and hatchery management.

"That, to me, seems reasonable," wrote Chris Scheuring, managing counsel for the CFBF, in a recent editorial.

Secretary Zinke Visits California Dams

California's flow proposal has caught the attention of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who earlier this month was invited by California Republican Congressmen Jeff Denham nnd Tom McClintock to tour both Don Pedro Reservoir and New Melones just weeks after the SWRCB released its final

draft plan. "Our goal here today is to show him not only the oppor

tunities we have for more water storage for a growing state, but to also show him the devastation that can happen if you push all of our water out to the ocean," Rep. Denham said o[ Mr. Zinke's visit. "It will dry up agriculture. It will dry up our communities."

While in California, Secretary Zinke also met with a group interested in draining the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park to restore it to its natural state after more than 100 years of providing water to the San Francisco Bay Area.

"This is still just a fact-finding meeting, but the secretary is very interested in restoring the valley to its natural state," an Interior official told The fVall Street Journal. The official said Mr. Zinke wants to learn how removing the dam at Hetch Hetchy would "'contribute to the reliable operation" of an existing federal water project that supplies water to California farmers, "in addition to the conservation benefits remova! would provide."

PageS


Alliance joins Conservation, Ag Interests to Raise Concerns on Litigation Impacts to Klamath Waterfowl

A coalition of California and Oregon conservation and farmers, and ranchers," Judge Orrick ruled. agricultural groups- including the Family Farm Alliance TI1e preliminary injunction, had it been granted, would earlier this month sent a letter to U.S. Interior Department have cornpeiJed a complete mid-season Klamath Project Secretary Ryan Zinke outlining concerns with recent litiga- shutoff and would have very quickly led to serious local cri-tion that seeks a preliminary injunction to stop all Klamath ses- both in terms of the devastating impact curtailing Pro-Irrigation Project diversions immediately and hold that water ject water deliveries would have upon managed wetland 1mb-in Upper Klamnth Lnke (UKL). itats on important Notional Wildlife Refuges, as well as the

''Tf successful, this litigation would severely impact Low- financial impact it would have upon the local farming com-er Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and TuleLake National rnunity. Wildlife Refuge, as well as family fanns- all of which pro- Had the preliminary injunction be granted, impacts to vide food and habitat for migratory waterfowl and hundreds recreation on Lower Klamath NWR would also have been of other species," lhe authors ofthe letter state. significant. Over 130,000 visits arc logged in a typical year

On Mny 23,2018 the Klnmnth Tribes filed a lawsuit un- at the Lower Klnmath NWR for birdwatching·, photography, der the Endan- and waterfowl gered Species Act hunting, with to protect listed these visitors suckers by requir- spending an csti-ing more water to mated $4.2 mil-be reserved in lion annually UKL. The hearing (20 15 dollars) in to review this new the local commu-potential injunc- nity. tion took place Similar to Cal-July 20 in San , ifomia 's Sacra-Francisco. Judge i menta Valley William Orrick ofi where rice pro-the U.S. District duction provides Court for the vitally important Northern District surrogate habitat ofCalifornia and food forwa-heard oral11rgu- terfowl, cereal ments in the law- grains and other suit filed by the wildlife-fiiendly Klamath Tribes agriculture in the against the Bu- Basin are critical reau ofReclama- to meeting the tion, seeking a , , · "ii"E needs of Pacific

f~~~i~;e~~i:- ;:::,::::!:::;=·:~,::;::;::::'•:;:;.,;~:;::·~:::;:::;;"~::;;:;h: ·:::;,;;:;:;r~;:::,~~;,;;•~:::::::::;,;i:::~;''i~:;:::,i::::::•'~:;::;•i:::::!i::~:::,j~:~:::;~::i~:::;~ir:;:;:i:~:~::·, II ~~~~:e :::~~s immediate shut- ,,.,, .. ,,.,.,, .. ,,,.,., ..... ,.,., .. , ...... ::·m::m::m .. : .... : .. :.m::::m·m·::m·::::::"''''"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'' stress placed on off of Klamath Project water deliveries. The court also con- birds by the lack of all these habitats could mark the begin-sidered the motions to dismiss filed by KWUA and the feder- ning of the end for our Pacific Flyway waterfowl resource," al defendants that argued that the case was not properly filed the Jetter to Secretary Zinke staled. in San fmncisco. The letter concludes with an explanation to Secretary

The Court did not issue any ruling from the bench, but a Zinke that the Klamath Basin is at another historic cross-few days Iuter, denied the motion for preliminary injunction roads in its future and that the intent of the signatories is to and transferred the case to the District of Oregon. The timing improve communication and encourage dialogue between the of the latter process is unknown. diverse- interests in the Klamath Basin.

"There is substantial disagreement whether the lake ele- "We do not believe there can be only one "winner" in this vation level is causing injury to the sucker fish, but there is crisis," the letter states. "Working together, we believe we no doubt that granting a mandatory injunction that cuts off can find solutions which meet lhe needs of the tribes, the water to the Klamuth Irrigation Project will cause substantial local community, the Pacific Flyway, other wildlife and the harm to others that depend on it, including wildlife refuges, fish -~pccies." I

_______ __! ·----------·--·--- . -------·--- ··-·-·-····-·-·--·-·-·----·· ·----

Page 6


WATER Act Passes House of Representatives The House of Represcntutives earlier this month unani

mously passed H.R. 519, the WATER Act, which Congressman Ken Buck (R-COLORADO) introduced in 2017 to keep water afforduble for rural Colorado. The WATER Act amends the tax code to allow mutual inigation and ditch companies to reinvest revenue earned from non-member sources, ultimately malting water resources more affordable for farmers and ranchers.

"By empowering nonprofit mutual irrigation and ditch companies to raise revenue from non-member sources, H.R. 519 will reduce the cost of water for cash-strapped farmers," Congressman Buck said on lhe House floor. "ll offers farmers and ranchers an affordahle water supply. And, in doing so, it supports not only our agricultural communities, but everyone in America who relics on farms and ranches for food."

Many fanners rely on member-mvned mutual irrigation and ditch companies to supply their water. By sharing expenses, these nonprofit organizations help reduce costs. But water shortages arc driving up the price of water, increasingly

incentivizing fanners to leave tl1e Colorado region because they can't afford water.

H.R. 519 allows these cooperatives to mise more than 15% of their revenue from non-member sources and still maintain their non-profit status, so long as they reinvest the revenue in maintenance, operations, or infrastructure. With the WATER Act, instead of passing the costs of infrastructure and maintenance along to cash-strapped farmers, these coopemtives can raise revenue through recreational water access rights or crossing fees, for example.

The Family Farm Alliance over the past two Congresses has formally supported the WATER Act.

"Across the West, fanners and ranchers currently struggle to make ends meet," said Aliiance Executive Director Dan Keppen. "This bill will help keep irrigation and ditch companies in business and will help meet the needs of America's f.:~nners and ranchers."

The WATER Act will now go to tl1e Senate for consideration.

Senate Vote on WRDA Imminent The Family Farm Alliance (Alliance) earlier this month

supported a Bureau of Reclamation title amendment to be added to the .. America's Water Infrastructure Act" (AWIA, S. 2800), which is the Senate version ofthc Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The House passed its version of WRDA (H.R. 8), a few weeks prior. The Senate is preparing to vote on an amended version of the House bill.

As of press time, the Senate was planning on voting on the bipartisan A WIA before the end of July.

"Leadership wants to keep the bill, and any amendments, non-controversial and pass A WIA with as little fuss as possible," snid Mark Limbaugh, the Alliance's representative on Capitol Hill.

The proposed Reclamation amendment -developed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee- would add several Reclamation items to AWIA. The bulk of the amendment comprises the text of a Western water policy bill (S. 2563) and a Reclamation title transfer bill (S. 2560) introduced in March. Alliance President Patrick O'Toole testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on these matters at that time.

"The provisions of the title we h<Jvc advocated for- with a few exceptions- generally apply to all Reclamation projects west-wide," said Alliance Executive Director Dan Kcppcn.

Importantly, the proposed title contains WaterSMART

grants program extension and reauthorization, autl1ority for pumped storage hydropower development using multiple Reciamation reservoirs, Reclamation title transfer provisions, aquifer recharge provisions, Reclamation transparency provisions and reauthorization of important endangered fish recovery programs.

"\Ve encourage the Committee to move this important amendment package forward to enactment, based on our support of the above issues," said Mr. Keppen.

Assuming the Senate passes A WlA with the amendment attached, the next step will be a House-Senate "conference committee" to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The timing of the conference is not clear, but Leadership in both chambers want to move WRDA/AWIA along quickly, perhaps passing a final compromise bill and sending it to the President before the November election. It's also possible that final action won't occur until the post-election l11me duck session in NovemberDecember, similar to how the WRDA I Water Infrastructure Improve111ents for the Nation Act passed in the 2016 l<1me duck.

"Given the Leadership's determination to move WRDA/ A WI!\ quickly, we are assuming that pre-conference discussions will start soon, regardk:ss of when final votes eventually take place," said Mr. Limbaugh.

President Trump is expected to sign the passed bill into law.

Title Transfer Bill Passes House (Continued (rom Page 5)

fer process. Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen testified before a House subcommittee last year in suppo1i of a draft version ofH.R. 3281.

.. On behalf of the Alliance, I thank those Members- Democrats and Republicans- who voted for lhis, despite aggres-

sive opposition efforts exerted on this benign and wellintended legislation by a handful of well-funded anti-farming 2ctivisl organizations," said Mr. Keppen. uwc look forward to working wilh the Senate to pass similar legisliltion."

Page 7

Monthly Briefing July2018

House Agrees to Go to Conference with Senate on Farm Bill The House of Representatives, by unanimous consent,

approved a motion earlier this month to go to conference on the Farm Bill (H.R. 2). As the month draws to a close and an August recess looming- at least for the House, anyway - lawmakers are ramping up their efforts to beat a September deadline for having a comprehensive fann policy law in place. Senate Republican leaders have said they intend to keep that chamber in session for much of August instead of taking their traditional month-long recess.

A House-Senate conference committee will now have to iron out the differences to arrive at a bill both chambers can agree on. Following the vote, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi CDCALIFORNIA) named the House conferees, or members who will seek to resolve the differences between the two chambers' bills. Of the 47 House conferees named, only 7 of the Democrat and 10 of the Republican conferees were from Western States.

.. Today, we move one step closer to delivering a strong, new fam1 bill to the president's desk on time as he has called on Congress to do," said House Agriculture Chairman Michael Conaway (R-TEXAS) after the House action. "'The House has pulled together a solid team of conferees from across the country who are committed to working with our Senate colleagues to reach a final product that helps millions oflow-income Americans climb the economic ladder while standing by the hard-working fann and ranch families who put food on our tables and clothes on our backs."

The Senate voted 86-ll to pass its fann bill substitute to H.R. 2last month, which didn't include the sweeping changes to food-stamp work requirements that the House version carried. The significant differences between the two bills have left some thinking an extension of current law is the most likely outcome even as agriculture committee leaders have said they still intend to get a bill done within that

timeframe. As of press time, the Senate still has to vote on a motion to

go to conference as well as name its conferees. Now, the House is out for August recess, which means the first public meeting of the conference committee will not take place until September, at the earliest. The Senate is likely to vote the first week of August.

The delay will likely add to the challenge of wrapping up this Senate farm bill by the end of September.

The Family Farm Alliance earlier this year formally thanked the House Ag Committee for the strong conservation and forestry titles included in H.R. 2. The Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition (W ACC), fo11owing its fly-in to Washington, sent a letter to members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, supporting "robust and reliable funding" in the Senate bill for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program (P.L. 566).

"Our fanner lobbyist group was in Washington, D.C. just days after the House voted down the 2018 Farm Bill, and had multiple meetings with House and Senate agriculture committee staff to discuss status and next steps," said Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen. "We'll continue to advocate, as this heads into conference, for conservation programs that are locally-driven, easy to implerrJent and get the most bang-forthe-buck on the ground."

The WACC sent a follow-up letter that will be shared with conferees, which emphasizes, among other things: maintenance of at least current conservation title baseline funding; inclusion of Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provisions making irrigation districts and similar entities eligible for EQIP contracts for off-farm irrigation infrastructure upgrades; and support for $100 million in mandatory funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, PL-566.

DONOR SUPPORT Make your tax-deductible gift to the Alliance today!

Grassroots membership is vital to our organization. Thank you in advance for your loyal support.

I r you would like further info, please contact Dan Keppen at [email protected], or visit our website: www.famihiarmalliance.org .

FamilvFarm

LLIANCE' ... Protecting Water for Western Irrigated Agriculture

. ·· (;q)IiTi~ufion&~~~·als<i·!ie ti1:iiled difectJy·to: · Fall1ilyF:ifiriAifraric~

2289S S. I>ick~~so'n Avenue Riv~rd:lle, CA9J6S6.

Page8

CORRESPONDENCE LIST AUGUST2018

Agenda Rtem XIV.

1. Copy of Letter dated April 19, 2018 from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminish·ation to US Bureau of Reclamation re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project in Santa Barbara County

2. Copy of Letter dated June 15, 2018 from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to US Bureau of Reclamation re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project in SB County

3. Copy of Letter dated May 3, 2018 from Downey Brand to US Bureau of Reclamation re: Request for extension to Develop Revised Proposed Action for the Cachuma Project

4. Agenda and packet received July 6, 2018 from Central Coast Water Authority for Operating Committee Meeting July 12, 2018

5. Letter from District dated July 11, 2018 to Mr. & Mrs. T. Rameson re: Water Service Accom1t payment terms

6. Letter from Dish·ict dated July 11, 2018 to Mr. & Mrs. J. Hartley re: Water Service Account payment teffilS

7. Copy of letter received July 6, 2018 from Central Coast Water Authority to COMB re: April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 Warren Act Trust Fund Payment

8. Letter from District dated July 16, 2018 to Mr. David Murillo, Federico Barajas and Michael Jackson, USBR Representatives re: Conh·act I75r-1802R for Water Service from the Cachuma Project

9. Letter from District dated July 16, 2018 to Ms. S. Kudo re: Superseding Water Service Requirements for 2910 Railway Avenue, Los Olivos, APN135-220-014

10. Letter from District dated July 16, 2018 to Mr. K. Andersen re: Notice of expired water service application - APN135-064-018 - new single family residence witl1 fire protection vacant lot 6 Jonata Street

11. Letter from District dated July 16, 2018 to Mr. M. VanDyck re: leak on property and request forgiveness on the monthly high water bill

12. Letter from District dated July 18, 2018 to the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District re: submittal of ID No.1's proportionate share of the LAFCO 2018/2019 Budget

13. Letter from District dated July 18, 2018 to Mr. C. Beshke re: Refm1d capital facilities charges paid for new water service installation at 1685 Still Meadow Road

14. Memorandum received July 13, 2018 from US Bureau of Reclamation re: Cachuma Downstream Water Rights Operations -Santa Ynez River Downstream Water Users Accounting- Revised Accounting Reports for August through December 2017 and January through May 2018

15. Letter received July 19, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Clerk of tl1e Board of Supervisms re: 2018 Conflict of Interest Biemlia] Review Notice

A ubrusl 2018 Correspondence List Page 1 of2

16. Copy of Letter from Santa Barbara County Public Works Department Flood Control Water Agency re: Cachuma Reservoir Water Year 2019 Allocation Request

17. Transmittal sent July 24, 2018 to Bartlett Pringle & Wolf - FY 2017/2018 Annual Audit Confirmation letters

18. Public Records Act request received July 25,2018 from Ms. F. Komoroske

19. Letter from District dated July 24, 2018 to Mr. R. Hapeman, County of Santa Barbara- General Services re: Water Service to Station No. 32

20. Letter received July 26, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Clerk, Reorder and Assessor Elections Division re: Notice of Election to be held November 6, 2018

21. Letter from District dated July 27, 2018 to Ms. F. Komoroske re: Tort Claims Information

?? . Public Records Act request received July 30, 2018 from Ms. F. Komoroske

23. Transmittal received August 1, 2018 from Channel Islands Regional GIS Collaborative re: 2017 Aerial Imagery data

24. Letter received July 30, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Fire Department re: 141-201-057- 3271 Highway 246- New Detached Garage

25. Letter from District dated August 3, 2018 to Ms. F. Komoroske re: Response to Public Records Act request

26. Letter received August 6, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Fire Department re: APN143-010-013 Calzada Avenue- New Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit

27. Letter received August 6, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Fire Department re: APN137-610-003 - 2045 Golpa Drive New Single Family Dwelling with Attached Garage

28. Letter received August 6, 2018 from Santa Barbara County Fire Department re: APN137-610-003 - 2045 Go!pa Drive New Guest House witl1 Attached Garage

29. Letter from District dated August 6, 2018 to Mr. D. Bertrand - Water Service requirements for 3524 Madera Street Commercial building Conversion to Residential and water service compliance for 3513 Nurnancia Street

30. Letter from District dated August 8, 2018 to Ms. F. Komoroske re: Response to Public Records Act request

August 2018 Correspondence List Page 2 of 2